U.S. Supreme Court may soon expand gun rights amid roiling debate

[onthedarkside]

 

 

The Supreme Court will soon issue its first major Second Amendment opinion in more than a decade, coming after a pair of recent mass shootings sent the nation reeling and reignited a tense debate over gun rights and public safety.

 

The conservative majority court is expected to rule in the coming days or weeks in a pending dispute over New York state’s tight limits on the concealed carry of handguns.

 

Experts said that while it’s unclear just how broadly the Supreme Court would rule, the restrictive New York law is likely to be invalidated in a decision that could have ramifications for gun control efforts across the country.

 

(more)

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3503408-supreme-court-may-soon-expand-gun-rights-amid-roiling-debate/

 

 

 

[vandeventer]

This is because the democrats are pushing Gun Safety which means Gun Control. Again this ruling on Americans second amendment rights should and will not change.

[IAMHERE]

It must be time for the Democrats to rewrite the constitution, why stop at the 2nd amendment ?

[expat_4_life]

I'm very uncomfortable with any new gun restrictions while Putin is still at large !

[Berkshire]

8 minutes ago, expat_4_life said:

I'm very uncomfortable with any new gun restrictions while Putin is still at large !

That's some pretty warped thinking.  The US spends more than any other country on the planet on defense.  The US DOD will take care of Putin.  Some rube with a gun doesn't help even a little bit.

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, vandeventer said:

This is because the democrats are pushing Gun Safety which means Gun Control. Again this ruling on Americans second amendment rights should and will not change.

You got the cart before the horse. Gun control = gun safety.

 

9 minutes ago, expat_4_life said:

I'm very uncomfortable with any new gun restrictions while Putin is still at large !

yeah, like the Russians are gonna invade the US and the citizens will stop then with .223 semi-automatics and Glocks, lol,  It used to be the tyrannical government, what happened to that?

[The Old Bull]

At the time the second amendment was added bearing arms meant having a single shot black powder gun. To comply with the second amendment everybody should be allowed to have such a weapon.  Modern mass killing weapons should be removed ,nobody needs a machine gun or RPG.

[Tropposurfer]

4 hours ago, Berkshire said:

That's some pretty warped thinking.  The US spends more than any other country on the planet on defense.  The US DOD will take care of Putin.  Some rube with a gun doesn't help even a little bit.

Yeah! over 1500 dead kids by guns this last year !!!!!!!!! This number is hundreds greater than all the police, military, adults of colour, and another group mentioned in the numbers I saw posted on PBS News via a Facebook video clip combined.

How in the gods name anyone can say, think, defend, and justify the gun culture in the US as somehow even vaguely in line with the 2nd Constitutional amendment, and in any way sane is beyond me.

Distractive arguments, deflection, and imbecilic smokescreens do not remove or cancel the FACT that to kill over 1500 children most of this number by mass murder with military grade weapons in a society is unhinged and has nothing to do with either sanity, decency, faith, freedom, democracy, or any semblance of what might be seen as righteousness.

[Jingthing]

The supreme court has lost all credibility.

Its a political court dominated by far right wingers. They do have massive power but it is not legitimate power.

 

Yet another reason that the USA is rapidly morphing into a right wing minority rule autocracy.

 

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-the-supreme-court-has-lost-its-non-partisan-stature-thanks-to-mitch-mcconnell/article_0868e955-6a09-533a-849c-213dd6fe2972.html

 

Editorial: The Supreme Court has lost its non-partisan stature thanks to Mitch McConnell

Edited May 31, 2022 by Jingthing

[Scott Tracy]

9 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

It must be time for the Democrats to rewrite the constitution, why stop at the 2nd amendment ?

It's been amended several.times, what's wrong with that? I would think.there will never be gun control of a significant nature in the USA.

[Scott Tracy]

8 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

I'm very uncomfortable with any new gun restrictions while Putin is still at large !

You think he'll come to the US soon?

[Scott Tracy]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The supreme court has lost all credibility.

Its a political court dominated by far right wingers. They do have massive power but it is not legitimate power.

Sorry to say, I agree. The world laughs at the court. All appointments are political appointments and the court and country are only interested in an appointee's political affiliation. So much for 3 separate divisions of power...the court is an extension of the political party who appoints the most justices, and reflects that party's doctrine. Why is a justice's politics so important?

[radiochaser]

On 5/31/2022 at 11:12 AM, The Old Bull said:

At the time the second amendment was added bearing arms meant having a single shot black powder gun. To comply with the second amendment everybody should be allowed to have such a weapon.  Modern mass killing weapons should be removed ,nobody needs a machine gun or RPG.

At the time the First Amendment was written, the predominant writing implement was a goose quill.   Everybody should return to that and then we can send comments by the same type of mail system they had back then!  Nobody needs the internet,  or computers!

By the way,  an RPG requires extensive licensing and permissions from the U.S. government before it can be purchased.  Much more stringent regulations than any mere rifle or pistol.   Getting the tax stamp to purchase an RPG could take as long as 1 year before it is issued.    

As an aside, there is a company in Texas that makes RPG's and launchers.  But their customers are military organizations outside the United States. 

Oh, and an assault rifle, the M16, costs between $30,000.00 to $60,000.00 and the permit to buy one also takes up to a year before it is issued.   

Edited June 21, 2022 by radiochaser

[KhunLA]

If the NY law / restriction is ruled invalid, it will only affect NY.  As that is what they will be ruling on.

 

They may add some opinions along with their ruling, which may or may not give an indication of how any future appeals will be ruled by the SCOTUS.

 

USA being a Republic, and states having the right of self rule, as long as it doesn't go against the Constitution.  Fine line between 'right to bear' and what restriction can be placed on that right.  If that line is erased, in NY, then folks in other states may feel the urge to follow suit, and sue for any local or state restrictions to be invalidated, IF, they even have those restrictions.  Most do not.

 

I didn't research or read the exact appeal they are ruling on, but suspect it is about the "premise residence" permits on Statin Is for handguns.   If so, then the ruling will probably consider that restriction invalid, as technically, it restricts the 'right to bear arms'  or, they could rule 'suck it up, and buy a shotgun', as you still can bear arms, just not a handgun without a permit.

 

I would suspect, if that is what will be ruled on, they'll invalidate the restriction, as a bit silly really.  A firearm is a firearm, does is really matter whether handgun or long gun.

[Chomper Higgot]

The SCOTUS is begging to be reformed.

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

On 6/1/2022 at 1:59 AM, Scott Tracy said:

You think he'll come to the US soon?

And if he did do you think all those Little Willies (names or physical features - up to you) with their AR 15s nestling slung next to the testicals they are intended to enhance would last 5 minutes?

 

[placeholder]

 

Broken Arrow open-carry incident raises law enforcement questions

An incident in Broken Arrow a week ago raised fresh questions about how witnesses and law enforcement should respond when people walk around in public armed with assault-style rifles.

A man in a tactical vest with a semi-automatic rifle and holstered pistol prompted Broken Arrow Justice Center employees to lock their doors June 13, according to a news release.

AT&T store employees who then saw the man proceeded to “run out the back of the store,” and multiple 911 calls came from the parking lot of a Target store that he was walking toward, Broken Arrow police said.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/broken-arrow-open-carry-incident-raises-law-enforcement-questions/article_a5f4a2d8-edb3-11ec-806d-bb938b4a6b13.html

 

What would happen if this loon approached the vicinity of a school? I guess the police would have no right to stop him  or ask him to move on since his right to carry enough ammunition to take out a few schoolroom's worth of kids is protected under Oklahoma law.

If the Supremes decide the way they're expected to, this kind of situation would be the case nationwide.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Scott

[EVENKEEL]

On 5/31/2022 at 4:00 AM, ozimoron said:

You got the cart before the horse. Gun control = gun safety.

 

yeah, like the Russians are gonna invade the US and the citizens will stop then with .223 semi-automatics and Glocks, lol,  It used to be the tyrannical government, what happened to that?

It only took sticks to supposedly jeopardize our democracy.  

[placeholder]

On 6/21/2022 at 9:45 AM, KhunLA said:

If the NY law / restriction is ruled invalid, it will only affect NY.  As that is what they will be ruling on.

 

They may add some opinions along with their ruling, which may or may not give an indication of how any future appeals will be ruled by the SCOTUS.

 

USA being a Republic, and states having the right of self rule, as long as it doesn't go against the Constitution.  Fine line between 'right to bear' and what restriction can be placed on that right.  If that line is erased, in NY, then folks in other states may feel the urge to follow suit, and sue for any local or state restrictions to be invalidated, IF, they even have those restrictions.  Most do not.

 

I didn't research or read the exact appeal they are ruling on, but suspect it is about the "premise residence" permits on Statin Is for handguns.   If so, then the ruling will probably consider that restriction invalid, as technically, it restricts the 'right to bear arms'  or, they could rule 'suck it up, and buy a shotgun', as you still can bear arms, just not a handgun without a permit.

 

I would suspect, if that is what will be ruled on, they'll invalidate the restriction, as a bit silly really.  A firearm is a firearm, does is really matter whether handgun or long gun.

Always intriguing to see an opinion like yours that is completely unprejudiced by acquaintance with the facts. 

Believe it or not, the article goes into some detail about what the case is about. And it has nothing to do with "premise residence." But why let facts interfere with an opportunity to bloviate?

[placeholder]

On 6/21/2022 at 9:45 AM, KhunLA said:

If the NY law / restriction is ruled invalid, it will only affect NY.  As that is what they will be ruling on.

Your contention is nonsense. Lower courts will be bound by this ruling when similar cases are brought throughout the United States. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by placeholder

[placeholder]

The 'Good Guys With Guns' Keep Failing to Stop Mass Shootings

https://time.com/6182970/good-guys-guns-mass-shootings-uvalde/

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your contention is nonsense. Lower courts will be bound by this ruling when similar cases are brought throughout the United States. 

Similar cases won't be brought up, as they've already ruled.  It affects NY, because I think Statin Is is one of the only places that require that.  It will be a ruling against NY's law.

 

Others (few) may be affected by the ruling, if having same restrictions.  If they are aware of the ruling, and act either way, to enforce or ignore.

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Always intriguing to see an opinion like yours that is completely unprejudiced by acquaintance with the facts. 

Believe it or not, the article goes into some detail about what the case is about. And it has nothing to do with "premise residence." But why let facts interfere with an opportunity to bloviate?

Did you miss this part of my reply ... "I didn't research or read the exact appeal they are ruling on, but suspect it is about the"

[Doctor Tom]

The US is living in the 1890s and its about time that they grew up  before they kill more of their own people with their idiotic and illogical love of firearms.  

[EVENKEEL]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The 'Good Guys With Guns' Keep Failing to Stop Mass Shootings

https://time.com/6182970/good-guys-guns-mass-shootings-uvalde/

I'm sure all agree that breakdown was disgusting. So many policies and protocols to adhere to that they (law enforcement) failed.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm sure all agree that breakdown was disgusting. So many policies and protocols to adhere to that they (law enforcement) failed.

First off, you apparently didn't notice that the article I cited was not about the Uvalde shooting per se, but rather about the emptiness of the notion that if more people were armed, there would be less carnage.

As for the specific case of Uvalde, I haven't seen anything to support your assertion that the police failure was due to "so many policies and protocols." Rather that they failed to follow their training. But, by all means, please share with us the source of your assertion. I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Similar cases won't be brought up, as they've already ruled.  It affects NY, because I think Statin Is is one of the only places that require that.  It will be a ruling against NY's law.

 

Others (few) may be affected by the ruling, if having same restrictions.  If they are aware of the ruling, and act either way, to enforce or ignore.

On the one hand, you you claimed that this decision will only apply to New York. Now you're saying that similar cases won't be brought up.

I guess you still haven't read the article since it's about claims of a very broad right to carry concealed weapons. You think that so much attention would be paid to this case by media of all political persuasions if this was a minor case?

As for "Statin [sic}" it's a borough (county) of New York City. So no, not a law that applies only to Staten Island.

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Did you miss this part of my reply ... "I didn't research or read the exact appeal they are ruling on, but suspect it is about the"

So you think bloviation should be immune from criticism? And this instance is so flagrant since the information is to be found in the very article that this thread is based on.

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So you think bloviation should be immune from criticism? And this instance is so flagrant since the information is to be found in the very article that this thread is based on.

If I actually cared about the specifics of SCOTUS ruling about NY state, I guess I would have read it.

 

If in the USA, no law would stop me from carrying a concealed weapon.  As the say, "Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6"

 

I now have read it, out of curiosity, and agree with article, it probably will get struck down.  Actually a good thing, for the anti & pro gun folks.   As now, probably WILL be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, AND, probably WILL need to show they a capable of, or at least had the training, whether it took on now.  Better to at least know how to handle a firearm than not.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by KhunLA

[EVENKEEL]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, you apparently didn't notice that the article I cited was not about the Uvalde shooting per se, but rather about the emptiness of the notion that if more people were armed, there would be less carnage.

As for the specific case of Uvalde, I haven't seen anything to support your assertion that the police failure was due to "so many policies and protocols." Rather that they failed to follow their training. But, by all means, please share with us the source of your assertion. I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up.

Would you not think that training and policies and protocol are very similar.