U.S. Supreme Court expands public gun carry rights, striking down New York state law

[onthedarkside]

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

 

The decision follows recent mass shootings and is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities — including New York, Los Angeles and Boston — and elsewhere.

 

About a quarter of the U.S. population live in states expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law. The decision, the high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade, was 6-3 with the court’s conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

...

The decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

 

(more)

 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8

 

[bbko]

Oh, thank my white anglo saxon ghod, now I can carry an AR-15 into a school, just as the founding fathers wanted it.

Edited June 23, 2022 by bbko

[Jerno]

Too many idiots in the USA so desperately clinging to guns.   Including the Republican retards on the Supreme Court.  The country has gone downhill the past decade or two, especially when dunce Trump ran amok as President.  Sad.

[ThailandRyan]

7 minutes ago, Jerno said:

Too many idiots in the USA so desperately clinging to guns.   Including the Republican retards on the Supreme Court.  The country has gone downhill the past decade or two, especially when dunce Trump ran amok as President.  Sad.

Unfortunately unless they rewrite the constitution your views are leftist.

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Unfortunately unless they rewrite the constitution your views are leftist.

You sure about that? 

"In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

 

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Edited June 24, 2022 by placeholder

[Eric Loh]

17 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Unfortunately unless they rewrite the constitution your views are leftist.

A constitution writtened in the eighteenth century. Much have changed but not the mindset of gun loving rightist. 

[Longwood50]

9 hours ago, onthedarkside said:

In a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said

This was not an expansion in any sense of the word.  The second amendment specifically says 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

New Yorks law said that in order to get a permit you had to show a legitimate purpose to have the gun permit.   That is an infringement since it puts New York in the position of arbitrarily determining what is a legitimate purpose. 

 

 

[Longwood50]

By definition a law abiding citizen obeys the laws and a criminal breaks the law.  So passing laws only stops those who are concerned about breaking them.  PS it is already a law you can't use a firearm to assault another person.  Pretty effective HUH. 

You can see how much gun laws have in terms of reducting violence by just looking at Mexico.  Before you say oh well they get those guns from the USA well then why don't those areas with lax gun laws in the USA like Kennesaw Gergia outside of Atlanta that make it mandatory for all citizens to own a gun have the problem.  Further even if you stop the importation of guns from the USA Mexico gets it's Fetanyl from China proving illegal products flow thousands of miles.  Vietnam is a big exporter of guns. 
 

 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

A constitution writtened in the eighteenth century. Much have changed but not the mindset of gun loving rightist. 

Nothing has changed, and people wish to be prepared against tyrants, and protect their family and homes, against all the criminals that don't follow any laws. 

 

Doesn't hurt if you enjoy a little venison now & then, as makes some nice sausage.  Cheaper than killing one with your car.

[Eric Loh]

22 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Nothing has changed, and people wish to be prepared against tyrants, and protect their family and homes, against all the criminals that don't follow any laws. 

 

Doesn't hurt if you enjoy a little venison now & then, as makes some nice sausage.  Cheaper than killing one with your car.

Any data on deer killed versus innocents? 

[Excel]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Any data on deer killed versus innocents? 

Coming along shortly no doubt along with the number of salmon caught by bears in Alaska this year. ????

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

This was not an expansion in any sense of the word.  The second amendment specifically says 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

New Yorks law said that in order to get a permit you had to show a legitimate purpose to have the gun permit.   That is an infringement since it puts New York in the position of arbitrarily determining what is a legitimate purpose. 

 

 

I guess you carefully studied the decision. So you know how Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, oddly enough carved out an exemption for such venues as courtrooms.  But I guess it's okay for the courts to arbitrarily infringe upon a person's absolute constitution right to bear arms into a courtroom.

[ThailandRyan]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I guess you carefully studied the decision. So you know how Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, oddly enough carved out an exemption for such venues as courtrooms.  But I guess it's okay for the courts to arbitrarily infringe upon a person's absolute constitution right to bear arms into a courtroom.

The infringement as you put it for courtrooms stems from many incidents where judges have been shot as well as others.  In a few courthouses in the State of California, police officers can not carry their firearms inside the court and must lock them in lock boxes where the court house security is stationed.  A sheriff deputy/court officer is allowed to be armed in the courtroom on the off chance that someone wants to try any antics.  You obviously did not take my first post at it's exact words.  "Unless the constitution is rewritten" give that a ponderance for a moment and let your mind think about what I actually meant sir.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

The infringement as you put it for courtrooms stems from many incidents where judges have been shot as well as others.  In a few courthouses in the State of California, police officers can not carry their firearms inside the court and must lock them in lock boxes where the court house security is stationed.  A sherrif deputy/court officer is allowed to be armed in the courtroom on the off chance that someone wants to try any antics.  You obviously did not take my first post at it's exact words.  "Unless the constitution is rewritten" give that a ponderance for a moment and let your mind think about what I actually meant sir.

 

The fact is that when  I pointed out for much of US history the 2nd amendment was in now way close to absolute, you responded only with an emoji. 

 

And it wasn't just me but legal scholars who point out that the contradiction between first amendment absolutist interpretations of the 2nd amendment and the convenient exceptions that are allowed to stand.

 

[ThailandRyan]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

 I can carry openly in almost all states, have a safe full of all types, and understand the constitutional limitations imposed by certain peoples republics, like California.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

  I can carry openly in almost all states, have a safe full of all types, and understand the constitutional limitations imposed by certain peoples republics, like California.

And you still have no answer for the fact that throught most of u.s. judicial history, the 2nd amendment was understood not to be absolute or anywhere near it.

 

So your characterization of opposition to the Supreme Court decision as "leftist" is clearly nonsense.  

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Unfortunately unless they rewrite the constitution your views are leftist.

They just struck down a law which was in effect for over a hundred years. Other states also have laws imposing limitations on gun ownership (mainly training requirements), Finally, not all guns are legal anywhere in the USA but this claim that the second amendment is absolute is spurious. Has the new york law been illegal for over a century? The decision was 6-3 and a dissent claims that Thomas was wrong in this interpretation.

[placeholder]

the evidence I quoted, the actual Supreme Court decision from 1879, clearly contradicts that summary.

 

Here it is again:

"In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

clearly says differently. 

 

And there's this, too

"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

 

 

[ThailandRyan]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Try and read some more case law 

 

https://legaldictionary.net/district-columbia-v-heller

Here is a quick synopsis for you again

 

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

Full case name:District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller

Docket nos.:07-290

Citations:554 U.S. 570 (more) 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497

 

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Try and read some more case law 

 

https://legaldictionary.net/district-columbia-v-heller/

Here is a quick synopsis for you again, guess I am dyslexic.

District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

Full case name:District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller

Docket nos.:07-290

Citations:554 U.S. 570 (more) 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497

 

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

 in what year was that Heller decision reached? How does it contradict the fact that for a majority of the years of judicial history that we have, the right to bear arms was considered quite differently from the way it has been recently?

Was the Supreme Court in 1879 composed of leftists?

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Any data on deer killed versus innocents? 

Actually more people ARE killed by deer via auto accidents, than school shootings / innocents, every year.

 

Average 200 killed in accidents caused by deer.   Posted earlier, so search deer if wanting to verify source.  I can't be bother to constantly repost same links.

 

Y'all just have to accept the fact, that Yanks like their guns, for whatever reason, and being able to own them, simply will NEVER change, in our lifetime at least.

 

Aren't you all the same people that state there are too many nutters out there in the USA with guns, and it's a very dangerous place.   But yet, want to deprive people from those very people you say make it a dangerous place.  Just a wee bit hypocritical.

 

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

I guess you carefully studied the decision. So you know how Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, oddly enough carved out an exemption for such venues as courtrooms.  But I guess it's okay for the courts to arbitrarily infringe upon a person's absolute constitution right to bear arms into a courtroom.

Guns have never been allowed in courtrooms, in recent times or Federal buildings.  And probably never will be.

 

[ThailandRyan]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

 in what year was that Heller decision reached? How does it contradict the fact that for a majority of the years of judicial history that we have, the right to bear arms was considered quite differently from the way it has been recently?

Was the Supreme Court in 1879 composed of leftists?

The source was shared, try again But here is a complete Wiki break down and it was 2008 and so overrides previous writs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, ThailandRyan said:

The source was shared, try again But here is a complete Wiki break down and it was 2008 and so overrides previous writs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

No one, certainly not me, is denying that the Supreme Court has recently changed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But it was you who claimed that the Constitution had to be changed if someone had a quarrel with the current court's decision. Clearly, there's a long history that says quite otherwise. And if the court's composition changes in the future, the current court's decision may well be reversed.

[KhunLA]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Any data on deer killed versus innocents? 

Actually more people ARE killed by deer via auto accidents, than school shootings / innocents, every year.

 

Average 200 killed in accidents caused by deer.   Posted earlier, so search deer if wanting to verify source.  I can't be bother to constantly repost same links.

 

Y'all just have to accept the fact, that Yanks like their guns, for whatever reason, and being able to own them, simply will NEVER change, in our lifetime at least.

 

Aren't you all the same people that state there are too many nutters out there in the USA with guns, and it's a very dangerous place.   But yet, want to deprive people from those very people you say make it a dangerous place.  Just a wee bit hypocritical.

 

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Actually more people ARE killed by deer via auto accidents, than school shootings / innocents, every year.

 

Average 200 killed in accidents caused by deer.   Posted earlier, so search deer if wanting to verify source.  I can't be bother to constantly repost same links.

 

Y'all just have to accept the fact, that Yanks like their guns, for whatever reason, and being able to own them, simply will NEVER change, in our lifetime at least.

 

Aren't you all the same people that state there are too many nutters out there in the USA with guns, and it's a very dangerous place.   But yet, want to deprive people from those very people you say make it a dangerous place.  Just a wee bit hypocritical.

 

You right that average 200 killed each year in accidents caused by deer compare to 18,800 people died due to gun violence by June 2022. 

 

There are many nutters in other countries too but none is more dangerous than gun loving law protected Americans. 

 

It is relevant to all as it amazed us on how broken the US political system and how a minority is holding the majority hostage. 

[ThailandRyan]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No one, certainly not me, is denying that the Supreme Court has recently changed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. But it was you who claimed that the Constitution had to be changed if someone had a quarrel with the current court's decision. Clearly, there's a long history that says quite otherwise. And if the court's composition changes in the future, the current court's decision may well be reversed.

Again your putting your own views of what my comment meant into your own written views.  Your view is a general assumption of what my 1st post said.  "Unless they rewrite the constitution", no where did I say rewrite just the second amendment.  Case in point is this "Look at what has happened here in Thailand with constant rewrites of the constitution and how it continually infringes upon rights people have had in the past",.

 

Amendments are just that they are amendments which amend previous writs and rules and regulations.  Yearly there are hundreds of attacks on the original constitution of the US because folks decide that the framers never took future generations into consideration........

 

Gun laws are continually changing and are constantly challenged and many have to be rolled back because they violate sacrosanct historical writs.  Do you know how hard it would be to rewrite the US constitution or for that matter create a new amendment?  Ergo why the Supreme Court rulings are the Laws of the Land, even though they get it wrong sometimes like Clarence Thomas did apparently.

Edited June 24, 2022 by ThailandRyan

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You right that average 200 killed each year in accidents caused by deer compare to 18,800 people died due to gun violence by June 2022. 

 

There are many nutters in other countries too but none is more dangerous than gun loving law protected Americans. 

 

It is relevant to all as it amazed us on how broken the US political system and how a minority is holding the majority hostage. 

18,800 are NOT murdered, as I believe you are implying.  Too many yes, but not even close to 19k.

(10,258 in 2019 / FBI stats), again, posted many times.  And yes, too many.  Live by the gun, die by the gun.

 

And gang bangers killing each other, some might consider that a 'public service'.  Also the majority of people murdered, knew their assailant.  Not exactly random killings.  Though more than enough to make the news.

 

I was searching murders in NY state, for another thread, and numbers have drop almost consistently from thousands a year, to less than 600.   Crime pretty much across the board, across the USA is, was DOWN, up until 2019.  Stats iffy after.   But that's not a good headliner for fear mongering.

 

You'll never see or read MSM stating things are better.   Can't sell anything unless people are scared into buying.

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Again your putting your own views of what my comment meant into your own written views.  Your view is a general assumption of what my 1st post said.  "Unless they rewrite the constitution", no where did I say rewrite just the second amendment.  Case in point is this "Look at what has happened here in Thailand with constant rewrites of the constitution and how it continually infringes upon rights people have had in the past",.

 

Amendments are just that they are amendments which amend previous writs and rules and regulations.  Yearly there are hundreds of attacks on the original constitution of the US because folks decide that the framers never took future generations into consideration........

 

Gun laws are continually changing and are constantly challenged and many have to be rolled back because they violate sacrosanct historical writs.  Do you know how hard it would be to rewrite the US constitution or for that matter create a new amendment?  Ergo why the Supreme Court rulings are the Laws of the Land, even though they get it wrong sometimes like Clarence Thomas did apparently.

Why would the entire constitution have to be written in order to change the interpretation of the right to bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment? That makes no sense at all. This is like saying my car needs a new tire so let's replace it with a new one. That's why I assumed you were referring to the 2nd Amendment. And it has no bearing on the assertion that disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling is leftist. History shows otherwise.

[ThailandRyan]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Why would the entire constitution have to be written in order to change the interpretation of the right to bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment? That makes no sense at all. This is like saying my car needs a new tire so let's replace it with a new one. That's why I assumed you were referring to the 2nd Amendment. And it has no bearing on the assertion that disagreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling is leftist. History shows otherwise.

Again, I never said the Supreme Court was leftist, it was your view I was pointing to as your information is outdated but you want to believe it is relevant...