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

[ThailandRyan]

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Again, I never said the Supreme Court was leftist, it was your view I was pointing to as your information is outdated but you want to believe it is relevant.....adios, gotta roll.

[vinci]

they always use the second amendment, but they never use the full phrase, they only see "the right to bears arm", but they never acknowledge first sentences "A well regulated militia being necessary ".

[radiochaser]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

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

You forgot to post this part of the decision:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

[radiochaser]

12 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

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. 
 

 

Years ago criminals in Mexico were caught with an M16.  Originally it was believed that the rifle was taken into Mexico across the American / Mexican border.  

After research by some American government agency, it was determined from the serial number, that the M16 was left in Vietnam.   Someone, probably in the Vietnamese government, sold the rifle either directly to criminals in Mexico, or through an international arms trader. 

As an aside, also years ago, someone in the American congress claimed that semi-automatic versions of the Russian AK47 were being converted into select fire weapons and sold in Mexico to the drug cartel, for $1,500.00.  That story died quickly when it was pointed out, that at the time actual military AK47's were being sold on the international arms market for between $5.00 (yes!) and $500.00!    The question was asked, why spend $1,500.00 for a converted rifle, that had problematic issues with firing, when it was 3 times the cost of a real AK47, that worked almost 99% of the time, even when damaged!

I stated $5.00 in the above paragraph, but now think it could have been $50.00.

Edited June 24, 2022 by radiochaser

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

You forgot to post this part of the decision:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

But the fact remains the the clause about the well regulated militia was judged to be relevant so the right to bear arms was far from being absolute. or nearly so.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Years ago criminals in Mexico were caught with an M16.  Originally it was believed that the rifle was taken into Mexico across the American / Mexican border.  

After research by some American government agency, it was determined from the serial number, that the M16 was left in Vietnam.   Someone, probably in the Vietnamese government, sold the rifle either directly to criminals in Mexico, or through an international arms trader. 

As an aside, also years ago, someone in the American congress claimed that semi-automatic versions of the Russian AK47 were being converted into select fire weapons and sold in Mexico to the drug cartel, for $1,500.00.  That story died quickly when it was pointed out, that at the time actual military AK47's were being sold on the international arms market for between $5.00 (yes!) and $500.00!    The question was asked, why spend $1,500.00 for a converted rifle, that had problematic issues with firing, when it was 3 times the cost of a real AK47, that worked almost 99% of the time, even when damaged!

I stated $5.00 in the above paragraph, but now think it could have been $50.00.

I don't know what you think your anecdotes prove.

 

I'll see your anecdotes and I'll raise you this:

 

"Diaz is one of 360 suspects arrested so far during Operation Without a Trace, an ongoing crackdown launched nearly two years ago by Homeland Security Investigations and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to intercept illegal guns, said Joseph Lestrange, division chief of Homeland Security's Transnational Organized Crime.

These agencies team with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate the financing, transportation, and communications methods of smuggling networks.

"Agents launched 534 investigations, seized $29 million and intercepted more than 1,200 guns, 4,700 magazines for semi-automatic and automatic weapons and 700,000 rounds of ammunition headed to Mexico, Lestrange told The Courier Journal this month."

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/25/american-guns-help-arm-mexican-drug-cartels-including-cjng/5586129001/

[radiochaser]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

I don't know what you think your anecdotes prove.

 

I'll see your anecdotes and I'll raise you this:

 

"Diaz is one of 360 suspects arrested so far during Operation Without a Trace, an ongoing crackdown launched nearly two years ago by Homeland Security Investigations and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to intercept illegal guns, said Joseph Lestrange, division chief of Homeland Security's Transnational Organized Crime.

These agencies team with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate the financing, transportation, and communications methods of smuggling networks.

"Agents launched 534 investigations, seized $29 million and intercepted more than 1,200 guns, 4,700 magazines for semi-automatic and automatic weapons and 700,000 rounds of ammunition headed to Mexico, Lestrange told The Courier Journal this month."

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/25/american-guns-help-arm-mexican-drug-cartels-including-cjng/5586129001/

Just that at one time, Mexican criminals were purchasing firearms from other sources than the United States.  Also that some politicians have a bent toward giving out misinformation or outright lying!

As to the flow of firearms, drugs, etc, from the U.S. to Mexico, or vice versa, being a retired Federal Agent now for 11 years, I no longer have any contacts that work directly with the border and so I am out of that knowledge loop.  My contacts have also retired or gone on to other jobs in the U.S. Government that have left them out of the loop of knowledge as well.   I still have contacts with other Federal Agents that work other areas of the United States, but they usually work different fields of law enforcement.

Edited June 24, 2022 by radiochaser

[Pattaya Spotter]

I would phrase it a little differently...nothing was expanded; the Supreme Court reiterated the people's right to bare arms by striking down an unconstitutional state law restricting that right.

[AndyFoxy]

A great day for America and for the lives of innocents.

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

A great day for America and for the lives of innocents.

Yes, they now have the ability to protect themselves ... ????

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

A great day for America and for the lives of innocents.

If it is a great day for America as you said, why are there widespread protests. If you care for the lives of innocents, are you for banning guns? 

[smutcakes]

19 hours ago, KhunLA said:

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.

Lol does 'stats iffy' generally mean up?

[KhunLA]

2 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Lol does 'stats iffy' generally mean up?

No, couldn't find, or inconsistent #s.

 

Along with 2 yrs of covid, and 2 yrs of police defunding, the figures may not represent the reality of the issue at hand.

[smutcakes]

34 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yes, they now have the ability to protect themselves ... ????

In not one of the well publicized shootings that i can remember has there been any mention of our armed have a go heros coming to the rescue. I expect this is becuase all but a very select few would completely panic and seize up when the firing starts and would be either fleeing in panic or doing more damage than good with their gun. Lots of big talk though but then its easy to talk big from behind a keyboard... different kettle of fish doing something when the bullets are actually flying.

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

In not one of the well publicized shootings that i can remember has there been any mention of our armed have a go heros coming to the rescue. I expect this is becuase all but a very select few would completely panic and seize up when the firing starts and would be either fleeing in panic or doing more damage than good with their gun. Lots of big talk though but then its easy to talk big from behind a keyboard... different kettle of fish doing something when the bullets are actually flying.

Armed people preventing crimes and saving lives don't make the MSM, as it doesn't fit with their spin.

 

Keep watching MSM, and you'll be programmed to believe anything. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

Armed people preventing crimes and saving lives don't make the MSM, as it doesn't fit with their spin.

 

Keep watching MSM, and you'll be programmed to believe anything. 

Thank you for not backing up your opinion with any verifiable facts.

[placeholder]

If anyone needs any more proof that Justice Kavanaugh is a liar here is a selection from notes taken during Susan Collins meeting with him where he assured her he wouldn't overturn Roe

 

“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he continued, according to the notes, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-kavanaugh-collins-notes.html

[KhunLA]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thank you for not backing up your opinion with any verifiable facts.

I believe it's accepted fact, that many crimes aren't reported.

 

Do you really think, people will waste their time reporting preventing a crime from happening, especially if it risks themselves being arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I believe it's accepted fact, that many crimes aren't reported.

 

Do you really think, people will waste their time reporting preventing a crime from happening, especially if it risks themselves being arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting

 

Well if your remark is valid, and you might want to find a better poster boy than Bernard Goetz, then I guess that means you agree with the reality that the widespread possession of handguns does not prevent crime.

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If anyone needs any more proof that Justice Kavanaugh is a liar here is a selection from notes taken during Susan Collins meeting with him where he assured her he wouldn't overturn Roe

 

“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” he continued, according to the notes, adding: “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-kavanaugh-collins-notes.html

People have the right to change their mind, as shown by the constant flip flopping of opinions.  

 

R vs W was overturned not on the fact that any judge believes in the right of having an abortion, but in the fact that the SCOTUS, even ruled on the issue in the past..  Simply correcting now, what they now believe, shouldn't have been ruled on to begin with, as not being a Constitutional issue.

 

If I'm reading what little I did (as don't care myself), but if not mistaken, I may be, but think people don't understand the ruling,  Or maybe I got it wrong.

 

Simply freeing up that decision to allow or not, sending it back to the states, and where is should be, in a Republic.  In a Republic, it allows states to self rule, as not all regions will agree on all things the same.

 

Overturning R vs W, is correcting an overstep of the federal gov't of the past.

It is not a statement for or against abortion.  That will be left up to the voters, of any particular state, to pass laws that fit the morality of those voters residing in said state.

 

As it should be ... IMHO

[KhunLA]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well if your remark is valid, and you might want to find a better poster boy than Bernard Goetz, then I guess that means you agree with the reality that the widespread possession of handguns does not prevent crime.

I definitely believe law abiding citizens trained and able to use properly, do or would prevent crime.   Matter of fact, I'd like to see most people, able to,  carry weapons openly.  Screw the concealed silliness.

 

10 people walking around the local pharmacy or bank with weapons .... what idiot is going to rob it.  Armed guard at ever school entrance, and every teacher able to, carrying a weapon, doing so .... what idiot would attempt or succeed in the next school shooting.

 

Just a thought.  If you can't rid the world of weapons (you can but won't), then you have to let people defend themselves.

 

That was a fact agreed upon in 1786, and holds true today.  If threatened, do you want to be the person with or without a firearm ?  And would you want other 'good' people around you to be armed or not ?

Edited June 25, 2022 by KhunLA

[Eric Loh]

34 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

definitely believe law abiding citizens trained and able to use properly, do or would prevent crime.   Matter of fact, I'd like to see most people, able to,  carry weapons openly.  Screw the concealed silliness.

I can envision a throw back wild Wild West scenario with gunslingers, bounty hunters and Gunfights. Republicans are moving back in time; good old days. Yippe ki-har. 

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

People have the right to change their mind, as shown by the constant flip flopping of opinions.  

 

R vs W was overturned not on the fact that any judge believes in the right of having an abortion, but in the fact that the SCOTUS, even ruled on the issue in the past..  Simply correcting now, what they now believe, shouldn't have been ruled on to begin with, as not being a Constitutional issue.

 

If I'm reading what little I did (as don't care myself), but if not mistaken, I may be, but think people don't understand the ruling,  Or maybe I got it wrong.

 

Simply freeing up that decision to allow or not, sending it back to the states, and where is should be, in a Republic.  In a Republic, it allows states to self rule, as not all regions will agree on all things the same.

 

Overturning R vs W, is correcting an overstep of the federal gov't of the past.

It is not a statement for or against abortion.  That will be left up to the voters, of any particular state, to pass laws that fit the morality of those voters residing in said state.

 

As it should be ... IMHO

A very convenient flip-flop from a judge who unequivocally stated his alleged opinion not long ago. And whether or not people change their opinions all the time is irrelevant. We're talking about judges. People who have been studying laws and ruling on them for much of their lives. You think that they flip-flop all the time. That is a ridiculous opinion.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

A very convenient flip-flop from a judge who unequivocally stated his alleged opinion not long ago. And whether or not people change their opinions all the time is irrelevant. We're talking about judges. People who have been studying laws and ruling on them for much of their lives. You think that they flip-flop all the time. That is a ridiculous opinion.

A judge is nothing more than  person with robe on.  Many were politicians.  Many were public defenders, many worked on the prosecution side of the law, and many switched sides, prosecution to defense lawyer to harsh judges to lenient judges.

 

Many are crooked as hell, and take bribes .... they're people, good & bad everywhere, all levels of the court system.  Simply making it to the top Judge spot, doesn't necessarily make them better than anyone else.   Same as being President, and proof, being top dog, doesn't mean much of anything.  Why the President in reality, has very little power to change anything.  The other 535 idiots hold that power.

 

Why there's 9 of them on the SCOTUS.

[smutcakes]

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Armed people preventing crimes and saving lives don't make the MSM, as it doesn't fit with their spin.

 

Keep watching MSM, and you'll be programmed to believe anything. 

All these criminals must be incredibly lucky to never commit any crime when armed and dangerous members of the public are on hand. Lucky we have you to educate everyone on whats really happening with all your independent non biased sources

 

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed:

 

27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article.   

 

https://aseannow.com/terms/

[Longwood50]

On 6/25/2022 at 3:18 AM, radiochaser said:

Just that at one time, Mexican criminals were purchasing firearms from other sources than the United States. 

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand that contraband goods flow from one country to another.  All you have to do is look at the huge problem the USA has with illegal drugs and for that matter illegals entering the USA to see that borders are porous.  

The issue of whether Mexican gangs do or not get their guns from the USA is irrelevant.  The point is that it is the people who use the guns that are violent not the firearm. If firearms were the problem then areas with the highest concentration of guns would have the highest crime rates.  They don't   

One only has to look at Mexico where "legal" possession of a firearm takes months, and there is only 1 store on a military base in Mexico City.  Yet there is no shortage of guns and violence.  So who has been disenfranchised out of a firearm.  The Legal Purchaser who you were not worrried about.  Who still has all the firepower the criminal.  

This idea that someone you can ban firearms can only lead to one conclusion.  Being illegal, the law abiding citizen will be prevented from owning a gun.  The criminal will find either domestic sources or imported sources to acquire a firearm.  

China sends us Fentanyl they also send guns.  You don't think that they also send them to Mexico. 

The idea that somehow you can legislate out of existence the bad deeds of people is pure folly. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/04/chinese-army-now-major-us-arms-merchant/2f3221b3-3dbd-4239-ae70-291e66d973a8/

[Longwood50]

On 6/25/2022 at 8:36 AM, KhunLA said:

I believe it's accepted fact, that many crimes aren't reported.

If they were not reported how can that possibly be factual.  

[radiochaser]

On 6/24/2022 at 9:36 PM, KhunLA said:

I believe it's accepted fact, that many crimes aren't reported.

 

Do you really think, people will waste their time reporting preventing a crime from happening, especially if it risks themselves being arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting

 

Years ago in California in California an auto parts store employee was fired.  He threatened to come back and kill all the employees and anyone else in the store.  He did go back, well armed with several pistols, a bunch of magazines and the store was filled with customers.  

The fired employee yelled something about killing everyone in the store starting with you and he shot at an employee and missed.   The employee that was shot at told the police that a customer who was waiting for his turn, pulled a pistol from a concealed shoulder holster and shot the would be killer in the back of the head.  

Due to the small number of legal concealed carry permits issued in California, law enforcement was able to determine the customer who shot the would be killer, was carrying a concealed weapon illegally!   This was mentioned in the news paper report as well as something about the police wanting any witness' to come forth, that could identify the man who had an illegally concealed weapon,  so they could arrest the man, for carrying a concealed firearm, without a legal license to do so. 

 

[radiochaser]

12 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand that contraband goods flow from one country to another.  All you have to do is look at the huge problem the USA has with illegal drugs and for that matter illegals entering the USA to see that borders are porous.  

The issue of whether Mexican gangs do or not get their guns from the USA is irrelevant.  The point is that it is the people who use the guns that are violent not the firearm. If firearms were the problem then areas with the highest concentration of guns would have the highest crime rates.  They don't   

One only has to look at Mexico where "legal" possession of a firearm takes months, and there is only 1 store on a military base in Mexico City.  Yet there is no shortage of guns and violence.  So who has been disenfranchised out of a firearm.  The Legal Purchaser who you were not worrried about.  Who still has all the firepower the criminal.  

This idea that someone you can ban firearms can only lead to one conclusion.  Being illegal, the law abiding citizen will be prevented from owning a gun.  The criminal will find either domestic sources or imported sources to acquire a firearm.  

China sends us Fentanyl they also send guns.  You don't think that they also send them to Mexico. 

The idea that somehow you can legislate out of existence the bad deeds of people is pure folly. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/03/04/chinese-army-now-major-us-arms-merchant/2f3221b3-3dbd-4239-ae70-291e66d973a8/

That was the point of my anecdote

.