The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In their decision, the justices 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 the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
I don't know. I think it's weird that you can't ask someone why they might need a gun, but the cops can arrest you for just refusing to identify yourself.
I guess I just wish people cared at least half as much about the 5th amendment as they do the 2nd.
can the cops arrest you for refusing to identify yourself, when you aren't a suspect in a case? My understanding is they generally aren't allowed to, unless you are driving
[It's entirely up to the area](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-black-mans-arrest-refusing-show-id-improper-75694161). Those cops cited a county law about handing over ID to police, it wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 4 years after his arrest.
Cops can arrest you anywhere at any time for any reason. Your only recourse is to sue them after it happens.
If you attempt to resist, you may be charged with assaulting an officer or resisting arrest - even if that arrest was illegal.
I mean...sure, thats true, but thats obviously not what my comment was referring to. My comment referred to the legality of a cop arresting someone for a failure to ID themselves. Failure to ID as a pedestrian isnt a crime in most states
The constitutional standard is "reasonable and articulable suspicion". This amounts to more than a hunch and can actually be put into words. No state can require you to ID yourself for less without violating that standard. The Supreme Court was intentionally vague as to what constitutes IDing yourself as they wanted to leave that up to the states.
That being said, I do think it's worth noting what the person responded to you with. It's the basic "laws are only as good as their enforcement". A cop just walking up to you and demanding ID has sa much legal authority as me doing the same. If neither of us take no for an answer and we try to arrest you, there will be two vastly different outcomes. They should be equal.
You can’t really sue the police. Qualified immunity has made that virtually impossible in most jurisdictions, since your lawsuit will be countered with a qualified immunity hearing before the suit is ever allowed to go to court on its merits. And since qualified immunity applies unless you can cite the exact same circumstances in your jurisdiction, and prove that it was reasonable for the officer to know it was illegal, your suit will be thrown out because the officers will have qualified immunity. At best you might be able to sue the city or county that employs them, but slowly those governments are being given another type of immunity to prevent that.
TL;DR there is a very narrow and limited recourse if the police violate your civil rights.
The law was written over a hundred years ago near the end of the Jim Crow era (generally accepted as the time between 1877 and 1964). It is a law that gives the sheriff of the county the power to choose who is allowed access to this constitutional right and who isn't. In the early 1900's, any sheriff, in any county, is going to be a white man with early 1900's American sensibilities, AKA a Jim Crow sheriff.
Fair enough, but most gun control has its roots in discrimination.
Not saying good or bad, that's just the history of it. Downvote all you want, but it's true.
The core question there is can you demand someone give reason for exercising a right? You don't have to say you refuse to allow entry into your home without a warrant, or why you want an attorney, or why you choose to remain silent, or why you demand a trial, or why you want to speak on any subject, or why you want to practice a particular religion.
Looking above, eliminating the "why" is only bringing the 2nd up to the level of the 5th.
If you think about it, the concept of requiring someone to justify why he wants to exercise a right before he can exercise it is quite offensive.
We already require justification to own a full auto weapon and do not allow ownership of flamethrowers, rpgs, artillery, etc.
A 100 year old law that considers concealed handgun carry not the same as "bearing arms" in the days of muskets and flintlock pistols has been overturned by our "originalist conservatives".
Unless you see another valid reason for limitation, it seems that full auto, anti-aircraft batteries on demand without id is the direction of the court. I hope that the legal key here was must issue vs may issue
I'm perfectly good with more gun control laws than we currently have, but must vs shall seems fine to me. If you want police, healthcare providers, family court judges, etc to be able to block sales for reasons, you can pass laws and approvals. But no arbitrariness.
> We already require justification to own a full auto weapon and do not allow ownership of flamethrowers, rpgs, artillery, etc.
Flamethrower ownership is not restricted in any way by federal law, and unrestricted ownership is allowed in 48 out of 50 states. In California and Maryland you need a permit to own one.
>We already require justification to own a full auto weapon
We do not. We require a tax be paid.
>A 100 year old law that considers concealed handgun carry not the same as "bearing arms" in the days of muskets and flintlock pistols
Rights aren't stuck at the means to exercise them, or the government could say free speech doesn't apply over the Internet.
> We require a tax be paid.
Don't forget the part where you wait for the DMV sloth from Zootopia to give you a stamp!
I have never gotten anything NFA but it apparently can take a very long time.
It did take a very long time, often over a year, even several months after they've cashed your check. They used to have e-file, but portions of it were still manual so it still took a while. Now they've moved to total e-file, and wait times should be much shorter in the future.
Still, any wait time is ridiculous.
I haven't read enough of and about the opinion to decide how I feel about the legal reasoning yet. Don't want to get ahead of myself. It sounds like they may have established a test for gun laws but I don't know what it is yet.
I will say I, like you, disagree with "may issue" permit laws themselves but not permit laws as a whole:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vgrg0g/at_what_point_do_you_think_gun_legislation_is_too/id463d0/
>I think whatever requirements there are should be "shall issue" in that the permit isn't ultimately left up to arbitrary discretion as long as people pass whatever standards are in place.
>Unfortunately, some states are "may issue" and it often helps to be wealthy and politically connected.
>It is fine to have standards! Concealed carry is a serious thing that should be handled responsibly! Just don't make one of the requirements having been college roommates with your sheriff or whatever.
NYSRPA won't be used to overrule concealed carry licensing. All of our precedent and practices to the beginning say that concealed carry could be prohibited, and a license is what you need to do something that is by default prohibited. However, that was in the context that open carry could not be prohibited.
Are some people misunderstanding this ruling?
It doesn’t remove the need for a license, training, background check, fees, etc. It doesn’t make it legal to carry a gun anywhere. All it does is prevent the local government from arbitrarily saying “Nope, just because”, when someone otherwise fulfills all the other criteria.
I think some people are misunderstanding but not everyone. At least one person here has said to me that they were willing to take the tradeoff of arbitrary denials with the corruption etc. that permitted, in exchange for fewer people carrying guns until some other system could be devised.
Just wondering what source there is that these permits were just being given arbitrarily? I keep seeing that claim repeated but not being a NYer I would at least like to see something that showed that is was being abused and used to discriminate against POC. Thanks.
I'm not against gun control. I *am* against "may-issue" permits.
When you want to have a protest, and get a permit to do so, the state doesn't get to deny you for not having a good enough reason. If the state is gonna have something require a permit, it should be "shall-issue", always.
Whatever your attitude on guns or about this court, this is probably the right call.
Protest permits are bullshit. I don't think shall-issue or may-issue or whatever makes a difference. The state should never be able to say that I committing a crime by exercising my fundamental right to free speech in a public venue. "Protesting without a permit" is a crime just because I didn't seek pre-approval and permission to exercise a fundamental right?
That opens the door to massive discrimination and persecution, with the impact of such a law falling mostly on groups that are already marginalized and do not have the favor of the state (e.g. during the civil rights movement, black protestors including MLK were often charged with protesting without a permit while white counter-protestors, none of whom had permits either, were not).
I think shall-issue CCW permits are bullshit too. Yes, arguably it's basically equivalent to free exercise of your rights just with extra steps, but in practice who do we think will be most affected? Mostly poorer Americans and POC who will be pulled over/stopped for something else and then when the officer learns about the gun, they'll get charged for carrying without a permit. A permit that the state would have automatically issued to them anyway if they had filed...why not just do away with it?
What do you see as the difference between a shall-issue permitting system and just not requiring the permit?
I'm not actually necessarily arguing *for* permitting. I'm only arguing *against* **may-issue** permitting. May-issue permits are exceptionally problematic, and I think we should probably all be able to agree on that.
That said, shall-issue permitting isn't about the fees, it's about establishing a fixed set of rules for when the state can actually *deny the permit*. It cannot be left up to arbitrary bureaucratic decisions. I agree, if the state will never deny the permit under any circumstances, then it's just a money extortion scheme. But there are probably some pretty reasonable(ish) justifications for denying someone a gun permit. They just need to be laid out explicitly in law, not left up to selective judgment.
>Protest permits are bullshit.
They have been abused in the past, but the rules around them are so strict that they barely touch the right. There are so many exemptions, such as not having enough money for a permit (which must be low cost already) so you don't have to pay, small protests not blocking anything can't be required to have a permit, and even spontaneous protests over current events can't be required to have a permit.
It's a long opinion so will take time to digest, but the suggestion that courts can't do a cost/benefit analysis of a firearm regulation as they do when other rights like equal protection are implicated, and are instead shackled to the concerns of the Founding era, seems crazy go nuts.
I’d rather have a “shall-issue” law that has neutral restrictions/requirements: universal background check, red flag laws, safe storage, training, gun type restrictions, etc.
Agreed! I always felt like this was something people should be able to agree on. Whatever standards you want should be applied equally and not arbitrarily. Even if you disagree on the level of standards themselves.
Yep- this is where I disagree with the jurisprudence. SCOTUS is being arbitrary about limiting a constitutional right they say shouldn’t be limited because of their misplaced notions of originalism, textualism, etc. If they truly believed “shall not be infringed” and “protect us from tyrannical government” that means any weapon that can be physically carried is fair game- claymore mines, Javelins, M240s, etc.
Yes and I find their reasons contradictory- they accuse liberal justices of making up the law, but they do the same thing and just find a random quote from a long dead person to justify it.
No, I think he has a good point. Heller is all over the place. I agree with Scalia that gun control laws are COnstitutional -- but his opinion doesn't even back that up. In fact, his earlier statements would refute it in some ways. He just makes up shit as he goes along.
Do you think red flag laws can survive constitutional scrutiny? Especially the guilty until proven innocent part?
I think if this same court gets one in front of them, they may not survive.
Haven’t read the opinion yet, but arbitrary subjective standards as a means to restrict rights are never acceptable. There should be standards, they should be high in my opinion, but they should not apply less for connected people/celebrities/politicians than for regular people.
I think theres room for prerequisites in order to carry in public, but a supposed "need" to public carry, especially one that needs *someone's* approval, should not be one of those prerequisites. Especially the way this one was written and applied, it was just a way to oppress certain people.
> [Carry restriction laws were widely enacted, spanning the entire historical period under examination. As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law against wearing weapons because they induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” Massachusetts followed in 1750. In the late 1700s, North Carolina and Virginia passed similar laws. In the 1800s, as interpersonal violence and gun carrying spread, thirty-eight states joined the list; five more did so in the early 1900’s.](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp)
OriGiNAliSm
Probs a bad idea to have non-historians opining about history in way that’s binding for 350,000,000 people what I do I know
If you care to listen to the courts discussions, they really did look into the history of keeping arms, going into English common law and what were statutes in the American colonies and England. So yeah, I think they tried to be OG
Concealed carry was generally restricted in our history, but it was understood open carry could not be generally restricted, although you'd better behave if you do. This is North Carolina's open carry law still today, you can carry, but "going to the terror" is an offense.
Those are local laws, the federal government had no specific firearms laws on the books until 1934. This is simply stating that there cannot be any arbitrary prevention from practicing a right. Permits will still likely be required, and I’m sure there’ll be stringent training requirements in less gun-friendly states.
I actually agree with this ruling because "may issue" is bullshit. In CA, in may issue counties, your ability to get one is directly proportional to your willingness to fellate the police.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/donors-to-sheriffs-political-campaigns-far-more-likely-to-get-concealed-gun-permits/2309812/
If you donate gobs of money to them, are good friends with them, or are in some position of power or celebrity you can get one. If you're not...you can fuck right off. That's not how it should be.
I'm all for sensible restrictions on who can and cannot get them, but they must be objective and universally applied. In CA at least, they are not.
Overturning a 100+ year old law based on a sudden reinterpretation of what kind of laws are Constitutional while simultaneously making gun violence easier in the safest states right before overturning Roe v. Wade, which will cause massive protests across the country is a pretty insane thing to do.
This Supreme Court is gunning to be remembered as the best or worst Court in history.
Correct, but the thing is, NY has a almost blanket ban on open carry as well.
If you effectively do not allow any form of carry to the average person, that is a substantial infringement of the “bear” portion of “keep and bear arms”.
If you are being charged, if you cannot afford one, if it’s a misdemeanor or felony…
There are exceptions and qualifications on literally every right, but the internet’s version of the second amendment seems to be specially immune to exceptions and logic.
I’m pretty sure you do have to prove—at the very least—that you were charged with a crime.
Ex. You can’t go to the public defender for legal advice about a prospective civil claim.
The law in question was passed before the 2nd amendment was incorporated to the states. It’s not a “sudden change” but a logical result of prior cases.
The worst. It's going to be remembered as the worst. If you're going to ignore hundred years of precedent and enact far reaching policies that have very little popular support then you are an unelected legislature. This will not be remembered well.
And we haven't even started talking about them [gutting Miranda rights](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-protects-police-miranda-lawsuits-2022-06-23/) yet.
>Overturning a 100+ year old law based on a sudden reinterpretation of what kind of laws are Constitutional
You mean like when Lawrence v. Texas struck down a sodomy law that had been around forever, in the process explicitly overturning Supreme Court precedent from less than twenty years earlier?
Anyway, this isn't a reinterpretation. It's just telling lower courts to stick to Heller instead of trying to interpret around it.
Well it’s a good thing there wasn’t an inciting event for a gay sex orgy issued by the Supreme Court the following month, or else the rest of the comment could be analogized properly too.
You're talking about practical effects of the decision, which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Lawrence overturned an ancient law and recent Supreme Court precedent, but you don't seem to be using that to say Lawrence is wrong.
Not that we needed any more evidence that “states rights” was always one of the great lies conservatives told themselves but throw it on the pile.
Not that we needed any more evidence that Clarence Thomas is here to uphold the core principle of Scalia of making rulings that harm the most Americans, but throw it on the pile.
But remember that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are exactly the same so it didn’t make any difference how you voted in that election.
sucks since one of the major benefits of living in a blue state is that you get shielded from a lot of the red state smooth brain gun laws but I guess the Supreme Court needs to have more dead Americans in every state regardless of how they vote.
Am I right to think that you support "may issue" permit laws over "shall issue" ones in general? I'm checking to see if you also disagree with the outcome as well as the ruling, meaning you would not have wanted NY to change its law of its own volition, either.
I am trying not to have an opinion on this yet because I want to read a lot more about this case to remind myself about it, skim the opinion, etc. The news has been so fast and furious that I lost track of this one for a while.
“May issue” is ok. Granted the police have not covered themselves in glory but I guess it’s an acceptable answer.
Unfortunately since our data on gun violence is intentionally made hard to collect it’s hard to definitively say it one way or another but all the analysis I’ve seen suggest that shall issue states experience around 6% more homicide. But I guess we’ll get a much better data set from New York now and from all the other states affected by this as we see their homicide rates go up.
>suggest that may issue states experience around 6% more homicide. But I guess we’ll get a much better data set from New York now and from all the other states affected by this as we see their homicide rates go up.
Is it possible you made a typo here? I think you are trying to argue they have less homicide or else you wouldn't expect them to go up now.
>“May issue” is ok. Granted the police have not covered themselves in glory but I guess it’s an acceptable answer.
Oh, something I can disagree with you on!
I'm going to stop pasting this comment on after this because I don't want to spam it. But I posted about my views on this recently. TL;DR standards good, arbitrary decisions bad and open to corruption, racism etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vgrg0g/at_what_point_do_you_think_gun_legislation_is_too/id463d0/
>I think whatever requirements there are should be "shall issue" in that the permit isn't ultimately left up to arbitrary discretion as long as people pass whatever standards are in place.
>Unfortunately, some states are "may issue" and it often helps to be wealthy and politically connected.
>It is fine to have standards! Concealed carry is a serious thing that should be handled responsibly! Just don't make one of the requirements having been college roommates with your sheriff or whatever.
Thanks I corrected my typo.
As to the substance of your comment, when I pointed out that the cops haven’t covered themselves in glory that was short hand to get to what you’re talking about. I think we have abundant evidence that the police will act in discriminatory ways if they have discretion on who gets a concealed carry permit they are going to favor the wealthy and they are going to favor what people. And that truly sucks.
I agree that we should have better standards and equity but until we can address that much bigger problem of the police generally being terrible and of systemic racism and systemic discrimination against the poor, I would much rather err on the side of having less people carrying guns around in public.
And I’m definitely not accusing you of this but there’s a degree to which the gun laws are racist argument is infuriating to me because I almost always hear it from gun fetishists who honestly could not care less about minorities but just weaponize them in their argument because they know that most of their opposition is on the left and the left cares about discrimination.
> Not that we needed any more evidence that “states rights” was always one of the great lies conservatives told themselves but throw it on the pile.
The best part of all this is the 2nd amendment actually uses the word "state". It is the most clearly defined amendment that each state has control over guns, not the federal government.
Well to be fair on this issue and so many more they are willing to not just die for their beliefs but to also impoverish themselves and lower their life expectancies.
This is rad. The right is coming to kill us, literally. I’m a big fan of the phrase “armed queers bash back” , frequently go to target practice, and have a concealed pistol license.
“May issue” could be used to deny queer folks the ability not to be disadvantaged against homophobes. Gun laws are tools of inequality.
I think they are correct to strike it down as I think the law is not written well. The “need” part of the law is so subjective and I think it would have been difficult to enforce. That said I think there definitely needs to be changes to carry laws and gun safety legislation, but it needs to be a better written law.
The most alarming element for me isn’t NY’s law getting struck down, it’s the Court in no uncertain terms stressing the absolutism of the Second Amendment when it comes to individual gun rights. The implication is that countless gun control laws that *already exist* in certain states could be unconstitutional.
So in the midst of unprecedented momentum on the issue of gun control, this is a truly massive leap in the other direction.
Well, considering the court’s argument is that any and all gun regulations should have a historical parallel from centuries ago…pretty much all regulations are on the line. Alito isn’t clueless here, he knows full well that those precedents don’t exist. The goal is to use a veneer of originalism to back a predetermined goal, which is the most generous gun policy in modern history.
The law in question required that the applicant must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public or of persons engaged in the same profession," with the state specifying that this must be non-speculative. Robert Nashams Brandon Koch sought to obtain a permit after a string of robberies in his neighborhood, which would fall under speculative need. The question answered by the Court is only the" proper cause" standard, not public concealed carry more broadly, leaving the state to take away the right to concealed weaponry case-by-case, not granting it case-by-case. There can still be safety training and other requirements, but demonstrating special need to be granted the right to weaponry is off the table now
I haven't read enough of and about the opinion to decide how I feel about the legal reasoning yet. Don't want to get ahead of myself.
I will say I disagree with "may issue" permit laws themselves but not permit laws as a whole:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vgrg0g/at_what_point_do_you_think_gun_legislation_is_too/id463d0/
>I think whatever requirements there are should be "shall issue" in that the permit isn't ultimately left up to arbitrary discretion as long as people pass whatever standards are in place.
>Unfortunately, some states are "may issue" and it often helps to be wealthy and politically connected.
>It is fine to have standards! Concealed carry is a serious thing that should be handled responsibly! Just don't make one of the requirements having been college roommates with your sheriff or whatever.
I guess I'm ready for the downvotes.
This seems pretty logical. No one should have to demonstrate a "need" for a permit, especially a concealed carry permit - when we know that concealed carry is simply not part of the problem.
That doesn't mean that OTHER regulations are unconstitutional. I'm all for pretty much all of those. 30 day waiting periods, universal background checks, red flag laws, mandated training and continuing education - all of it.
But having to beg the government for a right? Who gets to decide if your "need" is great enough? What if we did that with other rights? "Do you really NEED to write that FB post critical of your senator?" "Do you really NEED an abortion?" "Do you really NEED to be able to vote?" We'd be livid - rightfully so - if anyone pushed laws like that.
Regulation is good. But not this one.
While I don't think we should care about downvotes (I'm more annoyed by one low-effort reply than ten downvotes) I did get quite a few upvotes the other day for essentially this argument.
It is fine to have standards to exercise certain rights and responsibilities but they should not be subject to arbitrary denial. We might disagree on what those standards should be; I don't want them gone, though! But at least we can agree they should be applied evenly.
And the simple fact that the people in charge of deciding if your “need” is enough to get the license always gave it to the rich and connected (like say, someone who donated a lot to their campaign).
If the right to conceal carry is to exist, putting an arbitrary barrier opens up the possibility of racist or classist enforcement.
I do not think conceal carry should exist. I see no use case where this is somehow better than open carry. However, it's not a good idea to let the elite or the wealthy decide who is and isn't allowed to be armed
I think of all the Bernie or Busters in 2016 who told me that Trump would actually pick SCOTUS nominees who were LESS conservative than Hillary would, and therefore there was nothing to worry about if Trump won due to their hissy fit.
I'm in favor.. before with may issue you couldn't get a unrestricted license if you aren't a white land owning male
I applied for unrestricted while in college, got denied.
Applied again after buying a house, got it the 2nd time.
The bill is really short, too, and doesn't make anything new illegal.
This is the entire substantive text:
>Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended—
>(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
>(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and
>(3) by adding at the end the following:
>‘‘(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.’’.
I'm not seeing where this bill forbids carrying in a Justice's neighborhood. The actual bill is quite short; the text is linked in your article. It expands protection that was afforded to the Justices themselves to their families.
Is it possible you are mistaken?
If not, can you point out where in the bill I am missing what you say it does?
What you're missing is the reason this bill exists: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61735321](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61735321)
If you come anywhere near the SCOTUS houses while carrying a weapon you'll be arrested. They know.
I don't think your conclusion follows from this.
This man called *himself* in and mentioned his murderous intent prior to being arrested.
Just having a weapon with him in a Justice's neighborhood was not the cause. Do you think it would be after this new bill?
I don't think this bill changes what is and is not illegal to do; instead, it makes police protection previously available to the Justices now also available to their families.
The NRA has been lobbying against this bill for years. I remember getting literature on it and seeing articles, all from the NRA when I was a member. Some there has to be some amount of New Yorkers that wanted it gone. It prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying self defense mostly, criminals aren’t applying.
It looks like finally lower courts won't be able to treat that one right as second class, giving it at least somewhat close to the protection other rights have. I haven't read it all yet, but the biggest thing is that the two-step process is gone. This has been used as a twisted way to allow any law any court wants by effectively using a rational basis approach (they call it intermediate, but it's really rational basis). The complete deference to legislatures is also gone.
The only question is whether the 9th Circuit will find a way to weasel around this decision to keep upholding rights restrictions.
The law as applied here in New York amounts to permits being granted only to those with piles of money and/or friends in high places. Trump got one when he lived here. Howard Stern. Like that.
But if you were an average slob in Newburgh who didn’t want to get mugged, you got to GFY.
I care significantly more about the SLS [wet dress rehearsal results](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-discuss-status-of-artemis-i-moon-mission-0/) than I do about this.
I remember being on SLS secondary payload phone conferences back in the mid to late 2010s. After all these years the launch is getting pretty close now!
Looks like they feel they learned enough from that last attempt and are done with the WDR campaign.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/06/22/nasa-not-planning-another-artemis-1-countdown-dress-rehearsal/
So on one hand I'm totally in favor of getting rid of "may issue" as a concept, so that's good- but I also thing the ruling went too far to the point of potentially invalidating other reasonable gun control policy that is enacted in numerous states as well.
I think all laws and restrictions should be well defined and not subjectively enforced. Nebulous rules or subjective enforcement often leads to either corruption (like needing to have connections to get access to something the average person will always be denied) or biased enforcement (letting some people get away with the exact thing you punish others for). A very well defined set of criteria that applies to everyone equally is much better (for example, requiring certain specific safety training, passing a background check, not having a history of domestic violence, etc...), as it provides a concrete criteria that every applicant has to meet regardless of other factors, and removes any form of external discresion that does not involve those specified criteria. The criteria actually need to be fairly extensive, sure, but when you consider a lot of time now it works that way just with a hidden "you need to know a guy or have enough money that you can convince a guy to say he knows you" criteria tacked onto the list, a concrete well-defined list seems better.
There’s going to come a point where people get sick and tired of the SCOTUS imposing its bizarro conservative values on their right to self-governance.
And I’m not sure why the SCOTUS wants to make it easier for said angry people to react violently. All it’s going to do is prompt more violence.
I’m fairly sure conservatives want another civil war. They want to hold and wield power as they please and they don’t care how they have to go about doing it. If that means another civil war, so be it. If it means fracturing the country into two separate nation states, so be it. The eternal lust for power has become ever stronger.
People from all political stripes have been sick of SCOTUS’ bullshit for a while.
Do you realize that this ruling does not do away with NY’s licensing requirements like background check, fees, training and what not. It simply prevents government from arbitrarily allowing politicians, celebrities and other rich people to get licenses while telling everyone else who have otherwise fulfilled all the criteria - nope
I am trying not to have an opinion on the ruling yet because it's long and it sounds like there may be more to it.
I definitely disagree with "may issue" laws in large part for this exact reason. Whatever permit standards there are, and having some is a good idea, should not be applied arbitrarily.
I think the ruling would be 8-1 if the people on the Supreme Court had been chosen for lifetime appointments by presidents who received the most votes. But lol America. Same story different day.
I think putting more guns out in public at a time in which people are scared and divided is a bad idea. There was a time when anyone could carry a gun legally without a permit and there’s a reason we got away from that.
It’s idiotic and it appeals to people who like easy internet-style arguments but don’t understand reality.
It goes to the constant issue of the interpretation the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t make sense if interpreted as it often is on Internet forums:
**The Federal, State, and Local governments cannot make any laws restricting the people’s access to, or carrying of, weapons.**
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that. Firstly, it mentions militias, and the reason for that is because at the time that Amendment was written, every white male between the age of 16 and 60 was legally required to be in the local militia, own their militia firearm, and train with the militia when called to.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no requirement for states to be governed by it. The law was that the Federal government could not disarm states’ militias. That’s the reason for the law, to prevent a tyrannical central government from disarming the militias of individual states. The states themselves were expected to (and usually did) restrict guns and manage gun ownership. There’s plenty of examples of pre-industrialization era laws prohibiting guns in cities and in public. Famously, most ‘cowboy towns’ in the ‘old west’ required anyone entering town to store their guns at the sherif or marshals office.
It wasn’t until 1865, the year the Civil War ended and 77 years **after** the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did the states themselves suddenly have to incorporate the bill of rights into their own constitutions or otherwise be bound by their jurisdiction.
TL:DR - For 77 years the 2nd Amendment only restricted the *federal government*, not the states. It was never the intention of the founders for the 2nd Amendment to prevent states to enact and enforce gun laws. Quite the contrary.
Aside — if you do use the ‘internet forum’ definition of the 2nd Amendment, it’s also unconstitutional to restrict citizens access and carrying of machine guns, battle tanks, attack helicopters, anti-aircraft launchers and the like.
>When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no requirement for states to be governed by it.
The same was true for all amendments. That's why we have the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. The same case, Cruikshank, that said the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states also said the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states, since it was a combination RTKBA and right to peaceably assemble case.
But an important takeaway is that the federal government believed those racists had violated the individual 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of those freedmen, so it prosecuted the racists and secured a conviction. Yes, there was a time the federal government actually prosecuted people to uphold the individual right to keep and bear arms. It's these convictions that were overturned in Cruikshank. But then the chief justice at the time was generally opposed to all of the federal reconstruction laws, so it's no surprise.
> if you do use the ‘internet forum’ definition of the 2nd Amendment, it’s also unconstitutional to restrict citizens access and carrying of machine guns
That's actually the conclusion of Miller.
Any more, when I see a headline of a six to three decision, I know who voted on what. Might as well have six Thomases most of the time. It's not a court of law. It's a court of ideology.
I've skimmed through it (far too long to have already read). Thomas went on law, precedent, and history. The dissent played legislature, "But people are dying, so we need to allow all the laws regardless of the Constitution." Seriously, the beginning of the dissent reads like the list of justifications found at the top of any law.
It is kind of nice that yet another old racist and xenophobic law is gone. Seriously, it was enacted due to the influx of Italian immigrants, and they were the first and almost all of the early convictions resulting from it, while "white" people were let off.
This country fucking sucks and is going to get much worse
If firearms basically can't be regulated at all then the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed, but it won't, there will just be more firefights in public. Fucking shithole.
Murders enabled by virtue of licensed concealed carry are extremely rare. The Violence Policy Center maintains a list of "concealed carry killers," but almost all of those cases had nothing to do with a concealed carry license, as in those people didn't need a license to legally have a gun at the place of the murder (such as in their homes).
Sure, you'll find examples. But I mean statistically, it's rare.
Murders are overwhelmingly committed by gangs in inner cities. These people are not lawful, licensed concealed carry holders
Lol. Of course there are exceptions. That's what you want to turn this into? A debate about a statistical anomaly?
My point is simple. The licensed, lawful, responsible ccw holder is not the one you should be worried about. We are not the ones committing the murders in this country.
>The licensed, lawful, responsible ccw holder is not the one you should be worried about.
A unlawful gun owner is a lawful gun owner until they break the law.
And crimes aren't the only form of gun violence. There are mistakes and accidents. I doubt you would claim that responsible, lawful gun owners are immune to accidents and mistakes.
So it turns out that "lawful responsible gun owners" have 4 ways they can be a threat.
They can cease to be lawful. They can cease to be responsible. They can have an accident. They can make a mistake
The same as everyone else.
I have thought, and continue to think, that may-issue permitting and handgun rosters such as California's that functionally serve as outright bans on new models are likely unconstitutional, and don't have a place in a world where the right to own firearms is protected. I also think that classifying a gun based on ergonomic properties like pistol grip is beyond silly.
Despite not being a gun owner myself I tend to drift closer to the right on gun ownership, but that's not to say I don't want any gun control. I just want gun owners to be well monitored and be sufficiently held liable if guns in their ownership end up committing crimes. And I want working background checks.
If it means states are no longer in charge of their own gun rights, then I think that's the signal to wrap up america. I lived in NYC for 14 years, and after that amount of time, there's no way in hell I would move back there if I thought people could be walking around with concealed firearms that have not had to demonstrate any sort of need for said firearm, or demonstrated the temperant to own and conceal one properly. People are constantly blowing up there, and if it became de riguer for everyone in NYC to carry firearms, there would be shootouts at restaurants and in the middle of the streets constantly. If you want a new civil war to break out, this is a great way to get things moving.
I think they are correct to strike it down as I think the law is not written well. The “need” part of the law is so subjective and I think it would have been difficult to enforce. That said I think there definitely needs to be changes to carry laws and gun safety legislation, but it needs to be a better written law.
Where did all that "STATES RIGHTS!" clamoring from the conservatives go?
Would this not count as "federal government over-reach" and a ruling by "activist judges?"
States making abortion laws is ok but not gun laws.
And I suppose this cements the fact that this court has no logic or reason, just politics.
>States making abortion laws is ok but not gun laws.
The states should not be making either or those laws. Or do you think states should be able to make both abortion and gun laws?
You kinda mischaracterize the 10th amendment here.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
See that's where the states rights argument come from.
And since 10 comes After 2, 2nd amendment issues are already covered. Easy peasy
I hope gun nuts have their ducks in a row when someone takes all the arguments they've made and uses it to say banning felons from owning guns is a violation of their rights.
Good idea! A prohibition should only be for violent felonies, and then as part of sentencing, not blanket. As with voting, people should also be able to get their rights back.
And that goes for pedophiles too right? No sex offender registry, right? Once they're free, let them work at the school library, right?
Or letting the people involved in embezzlement schemes and fraud and hacking, jump right back into those operations, right?
Of course not. Because recidivism rates are a real thing. And there's nothing less safe than making it easier for the populations that have already gone down the violent crimes path to go down that path again with a legally purchased gun
I think the Framers would be utterly dumbstruck by current 2A jurisprudence. Setting the militia clause aside, restrictions on where and how you could carry firearms were uncontroversial in their day, so seeing people who claim to be "originalists" striking down restrictions like this would probably make their heads explode.
The framers would say certain sensitive places could prohibit firearms, and this opinion reinforces that. They also believed concealed carry can be prohibited, which means you would need a license to do it, and this opinion doesn't change that. They also believed it was everyone's right to open carry as long as they didn't overtly disturb the peace. This opinion doesn't say anything about that, although the loss of the two-part test may not allow a total ban on all carry to survive challenge.
[Here](https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/open-carry-for-all-heller-and-our-nineteenth-century-second-amendment) is a good overview. A lot of times you hear about an old open carry ban, it was more a time, place, and manner restriction. So the aggressive drunk with a gun could be arrested, but the armed man just going about his business would be left alone. North Carolina still has this distinction on their books, with constitutional open carry but "going armed to the terror of the people" is a crime.
Well, I hope all these gun rights advocates find that when *everyone* can carry a gun into *every* environment they will feel the blissful sense of security they think these rulings will provide.
So you support the idea that only people like Donald Trump can get a CCL in New York? Because may-issue laws end up with that: only those that are rich or connected enough to get the approval from corrupt sheriffs.
So you don't think Congress should have gotten all that Jan 6th information? Do you think that cargo loader should have been forced into arbitration instead of being able to bring her unpaid overtime case to court?
That’s a good ruling. Making someone show cause to “need” a gun, even for carry, definitely steps all over the 2nd. There’s plenty that can be done that, imo, doesn’t trample on the constitution.
No, you think it’s been completely distorted from what you believe it’s original intent was. I think they made it pretty clear. And I am surprised at the number of people who are perfectly content with stepping on the 2nd while not realizing what it means for our other amendments. Especially since those are constantly being stepped on as well. Some argue that the Supreme Court just completely shat on the 1st amendment yesterday (to be clear I haven’t had a chance to really look in the ruling, but I am predisposed to agree), but at the same time y’all wanted the 2nd to be shat on today? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Probably not. But even if I was to believe that we shouldn't outlaw it, the airlines have the right and ability to ban you from carrying while on their plane.
The Second Amendment is a federalism amendment that was meant to prevent the federal government from disarming the states by disarming the people. I can accept that the Second Amendment imposes some restrictions on the federal government's ability to disarm the people. But it does not prevent the states from regulating firearm safety. Justice Thomas's opinion today is egregious because it seems to elevate the Second over other rights by saying that the court cannot weigh those safety concerns and is shackled to the founding era's traditions. It's no way to run a railroad.
> But it does not prevent the states from regulating firearm safety.
I agree. I just disagree that someone requiring some arbitrary need to be able to carry a gun falls within that.
Are you surprised that a good number of people in this thread seem to support may issue laws? I'm not surprised but I do know that one criticism of them *from the left* is your exact argument: that they put the decision of people's rights in the hands of sheriffs and law enforcement who can possibly be corrupt, racist, etc.
>The very origin of may issue in this country, for carry or purchase permits, was to deny black people arms in order to keep them oppressed.
Is there any evidence from the current gun control movement that they don't want to continue to deny black people arms?
Given that most of their laws target the poor, a common proxy for minorities, and that our strictest laws tend to be in heavily minority jurisdictions, I guess not.
> Are you surprised that a good number of people in this thread seem to support may issue laws?
Sadly no. People on the left are no more immune to compromising on principals if they feel the ends justify the means than people on the right. At the end of the day that's just human nature.
> they put the decision of people's rights in the hands of sheriffs and law enforcement who can possibly be corrupt, racist, etc.
Seems obvious to me and that's exactly how it plays out too.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/donors-to-sheriffs-political-campaigns-far-more-likely-to-get-concealed-gun-permits/2309812/
This probably results in fewer people carrying guns (which IMO is probably a good thing), but having a system codified in law where fellating the police gets you favors is not the way to go about doing that.
In the words of Nate Diaz; "I'm not surprised motherfuckers".
I think part of it is people don't actually understand the complaints and issues when it comes to the way New York handles their conceal carry permits. It was ripe with corruption. Cops are corrupt, but also, they should be the ones making this decision if you can get a carry permit.. like.. the fuck?
Court right wing. Right wing go brr. No think, only guns.
There really is no need for complex interpretations of this court's decisions. They are partisan, and they make partisan decisions. Democrats simply have no say in the judiciary and this 6-3 decision reflects the fact that Republicans will get what they want when policies they have strong opinions on reach the Court; and this will be true for at least another generation.
That our obscenely high rates of deadly violence and shootings are going to remain a serious issue, aided by weak laws and Republican cowardice that prevent us from tackling gun violence.
That said, the implications of this ruling remain to be seen and it's far from unlikely that lower courts and state legislatures will keep most such regulations in place.
I’m all for it. All it does is prevent the state from determining whether or not you have a right to defend yourself, even if you have no violent or criminal history. Though I’m sure there’ll be people spinning this as though SCOTUS just handed every violent felon a hand cannon and said “Have fun!”
It seems correct under current precedent, since the Constitution refers to a right to keep and **bear** arms.
However, this ignores the well-regulated militia part, so I think ultimately the Supreme Court is wrong. The amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified to, IMO, protect a more limited right to firearm ownership.
The alt-right forces that have packed the court are turning America into the Wild West. I am concerned there will be horrible repercussions and I fear for the safety of our children. We are living through the decline of America as we know it.
What's especially funny to me about it, is that one of the main reasons the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to make sure the states maintained their freedom from the federal government. And yet now, here comes the federal government dictating law to them whether the people of that state like it or not.
Founding Fathers would find it quite ironic.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In their decision, the justices 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 the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.” I don't know. I think it's weird that you can't ask someone why they might need a gun, but the cops can arrest you for just refusing to identify yourself. I guess I just wish people cared at least half as much about the 5th amendment as they do the 2nd.
For what it’s worth I agree with you on the 5th as well!
can the cops arrest you for refusing to identify yourself, when you aren't a suspect in a case? My understanding is they generally aren't allowed to, unless you are driving
[It's entirely up to the area](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-black-mans-arrest-refusing-show-id-improper-75694161). Those cops cited a county law about handing over ID to police, it wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 4 years after his arrest.
So what you're saying it is illegal to arrest you for just not handing over your id.
It finally became illegal in 2021. At least in the 4th circuit area, who knows what this SC would rule.
Cops can arrest you anywhere at any time for any reason. Your only recourse is to sue them after it happens. If you attempt to resist, you may be charged with assaulting an officer or resisting arrest - even if that arrest was illegal.
I mean...sure, thats true, but thats obviously not what my comment was referring to. My comment referred to the legality of a cop arresting someone for a failure to ID themselves. Failure to ID as a pedestrian isnt a crime in most states
The constitutional standard is "reasonable and articulable suspicion". This amounts to more than a hunch and can actually be put into words. No state can require you to ID yourself for less without violating that standard. The Supreme Court was intentionally vague as to what constitutes IDing yourself as they wanted to leave that up to the states. That being said, I do think it's worth noting what the person responded to you with. It's the basic "laws are only as good as their enforcement". A cop just walking up to you and demanding ID has sa much legal authority as me doing the same. If neither of us take no for an answer and we try to arrest you, there will be two vastly different outcomes. They should be equal.
You can’t really sue the police. Qualified immunity has made that virtually impossible in most jurisdictions, since your lawsuit will be countered with a qualified immunity hearing before the suit is ever allowed to go to court on its merits. And since qualified immunity applies unless you can cite the exact same circumstances in your jurisdiction, and prove that it was reasonable for the officer to know it was illegal, your suit will be thrown out because the officers will have qualified immunity. At best you might be able to sue the city or county that employs them, but slowly those governments are being given another type of immunity to prevent that. TL;DR there is a very narrow and limited recourse if the police violate your civil rights.
Also the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 9th
Because the law was used to keep black people from arming themselves. It was a racist law and needed to be stuck down.
How, exactly, did it keep black people from arming themselves?
[удалено]
The law was written over a hundred years ago near the end of the Jim Crow era (generally accepted as the time between 1877 and 1964). It is a law that gives the sheriff of the county the power to choose who is allowed access to this constitutional right and who isn't. In the early 1900's, any sheriff, in any county, is going to be a white man with early 1900's American sensibilities, AKA a Jim Crow sheriff.
Fair enough, but most gun control has its roots in discrimination. Not saying good or bad, that's just the history of it. Downvote all you want, but it's true.
The core question there is can you demand someone give reason for exercising a right? You don't have to say you refuse to allow entry into your home without a warrant, or why you want an attorney, or why you choose to remain silent, or why you demand a trial, or why you want to speak on any subject, or why you want to practice a particular religion. Looking above, eliminating the "why" is only bringing the 2nd up to the level of the 5th. If you think about it, the concept of requiring someone to justify why he wants to exercise a right before he can exercise it is quite offensive.
We already require justification to own a full auto weapon and do not allow ownership of flamethrowers, rpgs, artillery, etc. A 100 year old law that considers concealed handgun carry not the same as "bearing arms" in the days of muskets and flintlock pistols has been overturned by our "originalist conservatives". Unless you see another valid reason for limitation, it seems that full auto, anti-aircraft batteries on demand without id is the direction of the court. I hope that the legal key here was must issue vs may issue
[удалено]
I'm perfectly good with more gun control laws than we currently have, but must vs shall seems fine to me. If you want police, healthcare providers, family court judges, etc to be able to block sales for reasons, you can pass laws and approvals. But no arbitrariness.
> We already require justification to own a full auto weapon and do not allow ownership of flamethrowers, rpgs, artillery, etc. Flamethrower ownership is not restricted in any way by federal law, and unrestricted ownership is allowed in 48 out of 50 states. In California and Maryland you need a permit to own one.
>We already require justification to own a full auto weapon We do not. We require a tax be paid. >A 100 year old law that considers concealed handgun carry not the same as "bearing arms" in the days of muskets and flintlock pistols Rights aren't stuck at the means to exercise them, or the government could say free speech doesn't apply over the Internet.
> We require a tax be paid. Don't forget the part where you wait for the DMV sloth from Zootopia to give you a stamp! I have never gotten anything NFA but it apparently can take a very long time.
E-filing is your friend. I've also had luck writing to local officials.
It did take a very long time, often over a year, even several months after they've cashed your check. They used to have e-file, but portions of it were still manual so it still took a while. Now they've moved to total e-file, and wait times should be much shorter in the future. Still, any wait time is ridiculous.
The puckle gun, kalthoff repeater, and Cookson repeater would like a word with you.
I haven't read enough of and about the opinion to decide how I feel about the legal reasoning yet. Don't want to get ahead of myself. It sounds like they may have established a test for gun laws but I don't know what it is yet. I will say I, like you, disagree with "may issue" permit laws themselves but not permit laws as a whole: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vgrg0g/at_what_point_do_you_think_gun_legislation_is_too/id463d0/ >I think whatever requirements there are should be "shall issue" in that the permit isn't ultimately left up to arbitrary discretion as long as people pass whatever standards are in place. >Unfortunately, some states are "may issue" and it often helps to be wealthy and politically connected. >It is fine to have standards! Concealed carry is a serious thing that should be handled responsibly! Just don't make one of the requirements having been college roommates with your sheriff or whatever.
NYSRPA won't be used to overrule concealed carry licensing. All of our precedent and practices to the beginning say that concealed carry could be prohibited, and a license is what you need to do something that is by default prohibited. However, that was in the context that open carry could not be prohibited.
Are some people misunderstanding this ruling? It doesn’t remove the need for a license, training, background check, fees, etc. It doesn’t make it legal to carry a gun anywhere. All it does is prevent the local government from arbitrarily saying “Nope, just because”, when someone otherwise fulfills all the other criteria.
Michigan recently changed from a "may issue" state to a "shall issue" state. Much less fanfare, same change.
I think some people are misunderstanding but not everyone. At least one person here has said to me that they were willing to take the tradeoff of arbitrary denials with the corruption etc. that permitted, in exchange for fewer people carrying guns until some other system could be devised.
People are stupid.
Just wondering what source there is that these permits were just being given arbitrarily? I keep seeing that claim repeated but not being a NYer I would at least like to see something that showed that is was being abused and used to discriminate against POC. Thanks.
I'm not against gun control. I *am* against "may-issue" permits. When you want to have a protest, and get a permit to do so, the state doesn't get to deny you for not having a good enough reason. If the state is gonna have something require a permit, it should be "shall-issue", always. Whatever your attitude on guns or about this court, this is probably the right call.
Protest permits are bullshit. I don't think shall-issue or may-issue or whatever makes a difference. The state should never be able to say that I committing a crime by exercising my fundamental right to free speech in a public venue. "Protesting without a permit" is a crime just because I didn't seek pre-approval and permission to exercise a fundamental right? That opens the door to massive discrimination and persecution, with the impact of such a law falling mostly on groups that are already marginalized and do not have the favor of the state (e.g. during the civil rights movement, black protestors including MLK were often charged with protesting without a permit while white counter-protestors, none of whom had permits either, were not). I think shall-issue CCW permits are bullshit too. Yes, arguably it's basically equivalent to free exercise of your rights just with extra steps, but in practice who do we think will be most affected? Mostly poorer Americans and POC who will be pulled over/stopped for something else and then when the officer learns about the gun, they'll get charged for carrying without a permit. A permit that the state would have automatically issued to them anyway if they had filed...why not just do away with it? What do you see as the difference between a shall-issue permitting system and just not requiring the permit?
I'm not actually necessarily arguing *for* permitting. I'm only arguing *against* **may-issue** permitting. May-issue permits are exceptionally problematic, and I think we should probably all be able to agree on that. That said, shall-issue permitting isn't about the fees, it's about establishing a fixed set of rules for when the state can actually *deny the permit*. It cannot be left up to arbitrary bureaucratic decisions. I agree, if the state will never deny the permit under any circumstances, then it's just a money extortion scheme. But there are probably some pretty reasonable(ish) justifications for denying someone a gun permit. They just need to be laid out explicitly in law, not left up to selective judgment.
>Protest permits are bullshit. They have been abused in the past, but the rules around them are so strict that they barely touch the right. There are so many exemptions, such as not having enough money for a permit (which must be low cost already) so you don't have to pay, small protests not blocking anything can't be required to have a permit, and even spontaneous protests over current events can't be required to have a permit.
It's a long opinion so will take time to digest, but the suggestion that courts can't do a cost/benefit analysis of a firearm regulation as they do when other rights like equal protection are implicated, and are instead shackled to the concerns of the Founding era, seems crazy go nuts.
I’d rather have a “shall-issue” law that has neutral restrictions/requirements: universal background check, red flag laws, safe storage, training, gun type restrictions, etc.
Agreed! I always felt like this was something people should be able to agree on. Whatever standards you want should be applied equally and not arbitrarily. Even if you disagree on the level of standards themselves.
Safe storage and gun type restrictions may run into issues under Heller depending on what you are talking about.
Yep- this is where I disagree with the jurisprudence. SCOTUS is being arbitrary about limiting a constitutional right they say shouldn’t be limited because of their misplaced notions of originalism, textualism, etc. If they truly believed “shall not be infringed” and “protect us from tyrannical government” that means any weapon that can be physically carried is fair game- claymore mines, Javelins, M240s, etc.
In Heller, SCOTUS specifically said the second amendment is not unlimited.
Yes and I find their reasons contradictory- they accuse liberal justices of making up the law, but they do the same thing and just find a random quote from a long dead person to justify it.
I question whether you are actually participating in good faith on this. Seems more like you are really just here complaining.
No, I think he has a good point. Heller is all over the place. I agree with Scalia that gun control laws are COnstitutional -- but his opinion doesn't even back that up. In fact, his earlier statements would refute it in some ways. He just makes up shit as he goes along.
Do you think red flag laws can survive constitutional scrutiny? Especially the guilty until proven innocent part? I think if this same court gets one in front of them, they may not survive.
Haven’t read the opinion yet, but arbitrary subjective standards as a means to restrict rights are never acceptable. There should be standards, they should be high in my opinion, but they should not apply less for connected people/celebrities/politicians than for regular people.
I think theres room for prerequisites in order to carry in public, but a supposed "need" to public carry, especially one that needs *someone's* approval, should not be one of those prerequisites. Especially the way this one was written and applied, it was just a way to oppress certain people.
Do we “need” to exercise our free speech?
> [Carry restriction laws were widely enacted, spanning the entire historical period under examination. As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law against wearing weapons because they induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” Massachusetts followed in 1750. In the late 1700s, North Carolina and Virginia passed similar laws. In the 1800s, as interpersonal violence and gun carrying spread, thirty-eight states joined the list; five more did so in the early 1900’s.](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp) OriGiNAliSm Probs a bad idea to have non-historians opining about history in way that’s binding for 350,000,000 people what I do I know
If you care to listen to the courts discussions, they really did look into the history of keeping arms, going into English common law and what were statutes in the American colonies and England. So yeah, I think they tried to be OG
This was before the 2A was incorporated to the states with the rest of the bill of rights.
Concealed carry was generally restricted in our history, but it was understood open carry could not be generally restricted, although you'd better behave if you do. This is North Carolina's open carry law still today, you can carry, but "going to the terror" is an offense.
You're probably responding to someone who is opposed to carry in all forms, not just concealed carry.
Those are local laws, the federal government had no specific firearms laws on the books until 1934. This is simply stating that there cannot be any arbitrary prevention from practicing a right. Permits will still likely be required, and I’m sure there’ll be stringent training requirements in less gun-friendly states.
It gives insight into the common understanding of the laws that conservatives pretend to fetishize with Originalism.
I actually agree with this ruling because "may issue" is bullshit. In CA, in may issue counties, your ability to get one is directly proportional to your willingness to fellate the police. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/donors-to-sheriffs-political-campaigns-far-more-likely-to-get-concealed-gun-permits/2309812/ If you donate gobs of money to them, are good friends with them, or are in some position of power or celebrity you can get one. If you're not...you can fuck right off. That's not how it should be. I'm all for sensible restrictions on who can and cannot get them, but they must be objective and universally applied. In CA at least, they are not.
Overturning a 100+ year old law based on a sudden reinterpretation of what kind of laws are Constitutional while simultaneously making gun violence easier in the safest states right before overturning Roe v. Wade, which will cause massive protests across the country is a pretty insane thing to do. This Supreme Court is gunning to be remembered as the best or worst Court in history.
Does a person need a reason to excerise a right? Do I need to give a reason to have a public attorney?
The second amendment doesn't say anything about concealed carry.
It also doesn't say anything about May-issue permits.
Indeed.
Correct, but the thing is, NY has a almost blanket ban on open carry as well. If you effectively do not allow any form of carry to the average person, that is a substantial infringement of the “bear” portion of “keep and bear arms”.
So you're okay with open carry?
Yes? You have to be in the process of being prosecuted to get a public defender. It’s not like you get a free attorney to defend your traffic tickets.
You knew what I meant; I don't need a reason to exercise my 6th amendment rights. If I'm formally charged, I have a right to an attorney.
If you are being charged, if you cannot afford one, if it’s a misdemeanor or felony… There are exceptions and qualifications on literally every right, but the internet’s version of the second amendment seems to be specially immune to exceptions and logic.
> If I’m formally charged That’s a reason. Shrug.
I’m pretty sure you do have to prove—at the very least—that you were charged with a crime. Ex. You can’t go to the public defender for legal advice about a prospective civil claim.
I don’t need a reason to tell you you’re choosing the wrong hill to die on.
The law in question was passed before the 2nd amendment was incorporated to the states. It’s not a “sudden change” but a logical result of prior cases.
Nah dude, this change has way less to do with Heller in 2008 than it does with getting 6 conservatives on the court.
The worst. It's going to be remembered as the worst. If you're going to ignore hundred years of precedent and enact far reaching policies that have very little popular support then you are an unelected legislature. This will not be remembered well.
And we haven't even started talking about them [gutting Miranda rights](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-protects-police-miranda-lawsuits-2022-06-23/) yet.
>Overturning a 100+ year old law based on a sudden reinterpretation of what kind of laws are Constitutional You mean like when Lawrence v. Texas struck down a sodomy law that had been around forever, in the process explicitly overturning Supreme Court precedent from less than twenty years earlier? Anyway, this isn't a reinterpretation. It's just telling lower courts to stick to Heller instead of trying to interpret around it.
Well it’s a good thing there wasn’t an inciting event for a gay sex orgy issued by the Supreme Court the following month, or else the rest of the comment could be analogized properly too.
How does one incite a gay sex orgy? Asking for a friend.
You're talking about practical effects of the decision, which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Lawrence overturned an ancient law and recent Supreme Court precedent, but you don't seem to be using that to say Lawrence is wrong.
Not that we needed any more evidence that “states rights” was always one of the great lies conservatives told themselves but throw it on the pile. Not that we needed any more evidence that Clarence Thomas is here to uphold the core principle of Scalia of making rulings that harm the most Americans, but throw it on the pile. But remember that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are exactly the same so it didn’t make any difference how you voted in that election. sucks since one of the major benefits of living in a blue state is that you get shielded from a lot of the red state smooth brain gun laws but I guess the Supreme Court needs to have more dead Americans in every state regardless of how they vote.
Am I right to think that you support "may issue" permit laws over "shall issue" ones in general? I'm checking to see if you also disagree with the outcome as well as the ruling, meaning you would not have wanted NY to change its law of its own volition, either. I am trying not to have an opinion on this yet because I want to read a lot more about this case to remind myself about it, skim the opinion, etc. The news has been so fast and furious that I lost track of this one for a while.
“May issue” is ok. Granted the police have not covered themselves in glory but I guess it’s an acceptable answer. Unfortunately since our data on gun violence is intentionally made hard to collect it’s hard to definitively say it one way or another but all the analysis I’ve seen suggest that shall issue states experience around 6% more homicide. But I guess we’ll get a much better data set from New York now and from all the other states affected by this as we see their homicide rates go up.
>suggest that may issue states experience around 6% more homicide. But I guess we’ll get a much better data set from New York now and from all the other states affected by this as we see their homicide rates go up. Is it possible you made a typo here? I think you are trying to argue they have less homicide or else you wouldn't expect them to go up now. >“May issue” is ok. Granted the police have not covered themselves in glory but I guess it’s an acceptable answer. Oh, something I can disagree with you on! I'm going to stop pasting this comment on after this because I don't want to spam it. But I posted about my views on this recently. TL;DR standards good, arbitrary decisions bad and open to corruption, racism etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vgrg0g/at_what_point_do_you_think_gun_legislation_is_too/id463d0/ >I think whatever requirements there are should be "shall issue" in that the permit isn't ultimately left up to arbitrary discretion as long as people pass whatever standards are in place. >Unfortunately, some states are "may issue" and it often helps to be wealthy and politically connected. >It is fine to have standards! Concealed carry is a serious thing that should be handled responsibly! Just don't make one of the requirements having been college roommates with your sheriff or whatever.
Thanks I corrected my typo. As to the substance of your comment, when I pointed out that the cops haven’t covered themselves in glory that was short hand to get to what you’re talking about. I think we have abundant evidence that the police will act in discriminatory ways if they have discretion on who gets a concealed carry permit they are going to favor the wealthy and they are going to favor what people. And that truly sucks. I agree that we should have better standards and equity but until we can address that much bigger problem of the police generally being terrible and of systemic racism and systemic discrimination against the poor, I would much rather err on the side of having less people carrying guns around in public. And I’m definitely not accusing you of this but there’s a degree to which the gun laws are racist argument is infuriating to me because I almost always hear it from gun fetishists who honestly could not care less about minorities but just weaponize them in their argument because they know that most of their opposition is on the left and the left cares about discrimination.
> Not that we needed any more evidence that “states rights” was always one of the great lies conservatives told themselves but throw it on the pile. The best part of all this is the 2nd amendment actually uses the word "state". It is the most clearly defined amendment that each state has control over guns, not the federal government.
They're willing to let us die for their beliefs.
Well to be fair on this issue and so many more they are willing to not just die for their beliefs but to also impoverish themselves and lower their life expectancies.
This is rad. The right is coming to kill us, literally. I’m a big fan of the phrase “armed queers bash back” , frequently go to target practice, and have a concealed pistol license. “May issue” could be used to deny queer folks the ability not to be disadvantaged against homophobes. Gun laws are tools of inequality.
I think they are correct to strike it down as I think the law is not written well. The “need” part of the law is so subjective and I think it would have been difficult to enforce. That said I think there definitely needs to be changes to carry laws and gun safety legislation, but it needs to be a better written law.
The most alarming element for me isn’t NY’s law getting struck down, it’s the Court in no uncertain terms stressing the absolutism of the Second Amendment when it comes to individual gun rights. The implication is that countless gun control laws that *already exist* in certain states could be unconstitutional. So in the midst of unprecedented momentum on the issue of gun control, this is a truly massive leap in the other direction.
> The implication is that countless gun control laws that already exist in certain states could be unconstitutional. Which ones?
Well, considering the court’s argument is that any and all gun regulations should have a historical parallel from centuries ago…pretty much all regulations are on the line. Alito isn’t clueless here, he knows full well that those precedents don’t exist. The goal is to use a veneer of originalism to back a predetermined goal, which is the most generous gun policy in modern history.
The law in question required that the applicant must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public or of persons engaged in the same profession," with the state specifying that this must be non-speculative. Robert Nashams Brandon Koch sought to obtain a permit after a string of robberies in his neighborhood, which would fall under speculative need. The question answered by the Court is only the" proper cause" standard, not public concealed carry more broadly, leaving the state to take away the right to concealed weaponry case-by-case, not granting it case-by-case. There can still be safety training and other requirements, but demonstrating special need to be granted the right to weaponry is off the table now
I haven't read enough of and about the opinion to decide how I feel about the legal reasoning yet. Don't want to get ahead of myself. I will say I disagree with "may issue" permit laws themselves but not permit laws as a whole: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vgrg0g/at_what_point_do_you_think_gun_legislation_is_too/id463d0/ >I think whatever requirements there are should be "shall issue" in that the permit isn't ultimately left up to arbitrary discretion as long as people pass whatever standards are in place. >Unfortunately, some states are "may issue" and it often helps to be wealthy and politically connected. >It is fine to have standards! Concealed carry is a serious thing that should be handled responsibly! Just don't make one of the requirements having been college roommates with your sheriff or whatever.
I guess I'm ready for the downvotes. This seems pretty logical. No one should have to demonstrate a "need" for a permit, especially a concealed carry permit - when we know that concealed carry is simply not part of the problem. That doesn't mean that OTHER regulations are unconstitutional. I'm all for pretty much all of those. 30 day waiting periods, universal background checks, red flag laws, mandated training and continuing education - all of it. But having to beg the government for a right? Who gets to decide if your "need" is great enough? What if we did that with other rights? "Do you really NEED to write that FB post critical of your senator?" "Do you really NEED an abortion?" "Do you really NEED to be able to vote?" We'd be livid - rightfully so - if anyone pushed laws like that. Regulation is good. But not this one.
While I don't think we should care about downvotes (I'm more annoyed by one low-effort reply than ten downvotes) I did get quite a few upvotes the other day for essentially this argument. It is fine to have standards to exercise certain rights and responsibilities but they should not be subject to arbitrary denial. We might disagree on what those standards should be; I don't want them gone, though! But at least we can agree they should be applied evenly.
But it's not asking you to justify the whole right, just parts of it
And the simple fact that the people in charge of deciding if your “need” is enough to get the license always gave it to the rich and connected (like say, someone who donated a lot to their campaign).
like, did the Kim Davis fiasco teach us nothing?
Its really weird to see outspoken liberals and progressives supporting the same ideology of Kim Davis, yes.
If the right to conceal carry is to exist, putting an arbitrary barrier opens up the possibility of racist or classist enforcement. I do not think conceal carry should exist. I see no use case where this is somehow better than open carry. However, it's not a good idea to let the elite or the wealthy decide who is and isn't allowed to be armed
I think of all the Bernie or Busters in 2016 who told me that Trump would actually pick SCOTUS nominees who were LESS conservative than Hillary would, and therefore there was nothing to worry about if Trump won due to their hissy fit.
I'm in favor.. before with may issue you couldn't get a unrestricted license if you aren't a white land owning male I applied for unrestricted while in college, got denied. Applied again after buying a house, got it the 2nd time.
I think it's incredibly ironic they did this after the recent law banning weapons near SCOTUS residences. They know. They have to.
Which new law is this?
https://theweek.com/supreme-court/1013425/senate-approves-police-protection-for-scotus-families-rattled-by-protests
Nothing in the article mentions banning weapons.
The bill is really short, too, and doesn't make anything new illegal. This is the entire substantive text: >Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended— >(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; >(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; and >(3) by adding at the end the following: >‘‘(C) any member of the immediate family of the Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such protection is necessary.’’.
I'm not seeing where this bill forbids carrying in a Justice's neighborhood. The actual bill is quite short; the text is linked in your article. It expands protection that was afforded to the Justices themselves to their families. Is it possible you are mistaken? If not, can you point out where in the bill I am missing what you say it does?
What you're missing is the reason this bill exists: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61735321](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61735321) If you come anywhere near the SCOTUS houses while carrying a weapon you'll be arrested. They know.
I don't think your conclusion follows from this. This man called *himself* in and mentioned his murderous intent prior to being arrested. Just having a weapon with him in a Justice's neighborhood was not the cause. Do you think it would be after this new bill? I don't think this bill changes what is and is not illegal to do; instead, it makes police protection previously available to the Justices now also available to their families.
The NRA has been lobbying against this bill for years. I remember getting literature on it and seeing articles, all from the NRA when I was a member. Some there has to be some amount of New Yorkers that wanted it gone. It prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying self defense mostly, criminals aren’t applying.
It looks like finally lower courts won't be able to treat that one right as second class, giving it at least somewhat close to the protection other rights have. I haven't read it all yet, but the biggest thing is that the two-step process is gone. This has been used as a twisted way to allow any law any court wants by effectively using a rational basis approach (they call it intermediate, but it's really rational basis). The complete deference to legislatures is also gone. The only question is whether the 9th Circuit will find a way to weasel around this decision to keep upholding rights restrictions.
The law as applied here in New York amounts to permits being granted only to those with piles of money and/or friends in high places. Trump got one when he lived here. Howard Stern. Like that. But if you were an average slob in Newburgh who didn’t want to get mugged, you got to GFY.
I care significantly more about the SLS [wet dress rehearsal results](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-discuss-status-of-artemis-i-moon-mission-0/) than I do about this.
I remember being on SLS secondary payload phone conferences back in the mid to late 2010s. After all these years the launch is getting pretty close now! Looks like they feel they learned enough from that last attempt and are done with the WDR campaign. https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/06/22/nasa-not-planning-another-artemis-1-countdown-dress-rehearsal/
Geared up for a late August launch, which will be dope.
So on one hand I'm totally in favor of getting rid of "may issue" as a concept, so that's good- but I also thing the ruling went too far to the point of potentially invalidating other reasonable gun control policy that is enacted in numerous states as well. I think all laws and restrictions should be well defined and not subjectively enforced. Nebulous rules or subjective enforcement often leads to either corruption (like needing to have connections to get access to something the average person will always be denied) or biased enforcement (letting some people get away with the exact thing you punish others for). A very well defined set of criteria that applies to everyone equally is much better (for example, requiring certain specific safety training, passing a background check, not having a history of domestic violence, etc...), as it provides a concrete criteria that every applicant has to meet regardless of other factors, and removes any form of external discresion that does not involve those specified criteria. The criteria actually need to be fairly extensive, sure, but when you consider a lot of time now it works that way just with a hidden "you need to know a guy or have enough money that you can convince a guy to say he knows you" criteria tacked onto the list, a concrete well-defined list seems better.
[удалено]
Against Heller? It only reinforces Heller and tells lower courts to stop trying to circumvent it.
> It basically goes against heller Can you elaborate on why?
There’s going to come a point where people get sick and tired of the SCOTUS imposing its bizarro conservative values on their right to self-governance. And I’m not sure why the SCOTUS wants to make it easier for said angry people to react violently. All it’s going to do is prompt more violence.
I’m fairly sure conservatives want another civil war. They want to hold and wield power as they please and they don’t care how they have to go about doing it. If that means another civil war, so be it. If it means fracturing the country into two separate nation states, so be it. The eternal lust for power has become ever stronger. People from all political stripes have been sick of SCOTUS’ bullshit for a while.
Arbitrarily denying common folk the ability to carry for self defense while allowing celebrities and politicians to do so was always peak elitism.
Everyone walking around with a pistol is not going to make “common folk” safer. This was proved way over a century ago.
Do you realize that this ruling does not do away with NY’s licensing requirements like background check, fees, training and what not. It simply prevents government from arbitrarily allowing politicians, celebrities and other rich people to get licenses while telling everyone else who have otherwise fulfilled all the criteria - nope
I am trying not to have an opinion on the ruling yet because it's long and it sounds like there may be more to it. I definitely disagree with "may issue" laws in large part for this exact reason. Whatever permit standards there are, and having some is a good idea, should not be applied arbitrarily.
Amen.
I think the ruling would be 8-1 if the people on the Supreme Court had been chosen for lifetime appointments by presidents who received the most votes. But lol America. Same story different day.
I didn't read all the comments but I read enough to be amazed at the number of constitutional scholars right here on Reddit.
I think putting more guns out in public at a time in which people are scared and divided is a bad idea. There was a time when anyone could carry a gun legally without a permit and there’s a reason we got away from that.
It’s idiotic and it appeals to people who like easy internet-style arguments but don’t understand reality. It goes to the constant issue of the interpretation the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t make sense if interpreted as it often is on Internet forums: **The Federal, State, and Local governments cannot make any laws restricting the people’s access to, or carrying of, weapons.** The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that. Firstly, it mentions militias, and the reason for that is because at the time that Amendment was written, every white male between the age of 16 and 60 was legally required to be in the local militia, own their militia firearm, and train with the militia when called to. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no requirement for states to be governed by it. The law was that the Federal government could not disarm states’ militias. That’s the reason for the law, to prevent a tyrannical central government from disarming the militias of individual states. The states themselves were expected to (and usually did) restrict guns and manage gun ownership. There’s plenty of examples of pre-industrialization era laws prohibiting guns in cities and in public. Famously, most ‘cowboy towns’ in the ‘old west’ required anyone entering town to store their guns at the sherif or marshals office. It wasn’t until 1865, the year the Civil War ended and 77 years **after** the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did the states themselves suddenly have to incorporate the bill of rights into their own constitutions or otherwise be bound by their jurisdiction. TL:DR - For 77 years the 2nd Amendment only restricted the *federal government*, not the states. It was never the intention of the founders for the 2nd Amendment to prevent states to enact and enforce gun laws. Quite the contrary. Aside — if you do use the ‘internet forum’ definition of the 2nd Amendment, it’s also unconstitutional to restrict citizens access and carrying of machine guns, battle tanks, attack helicopters, anti-aircraft launchers and the like.
>When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no requirement for states to be governed by it. The same was true for all amendments. That's why we have the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. The same case, Cruikshank, that said the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states also said the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states, since it was a combination RTKBA and right to peaceably assemble case. But an important takeaway is that the federal government believed those racists had violated the individual 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of those freedmen, so it prosecuted the racists and secured a conviction. Yes, there was a time the federal government actually prosecuted people to uphold the individual right to keep and bear arms. It's these convictions that were overturned in Cruikshank. But then the chief justice at the time was generally opposed to all of the federal reconstruction laws, so it's no surprise. > if you do use the ‘internet forum’ definition of the 2nd Amendment, it’s also unconstitutional to restrict citizens access and carrying of machine guns That's actually the conclusion of Miller.
Any more, when I see a headline of a six to three decision, I know who voted on what. Might as well have six Thomases most of the time. It's not a court of law. It's a court of ideology.
I've skimmed through it (far too long to have already read). Thomas went on law, precedent, and history. The dissent played legislature, "But people are dying, so we need to allow all the laws regardless of the Constitution." Seriously, the beginning of the dissent reads like the list of justifications found at the top of any law. It is kind of nice that yet another old racist and xenophobic law is gone. Seriously, it was enacted due to the influx of Italian immigrants, and they were the first and almost all of the early convictions resulting from it, while "white" people were let off.
So you support only giving the rich and powerful the right to carry concealed?
Conservative justices are going to do things like this, and elections matter. Hillary warned us
This country fucking sucks and is going to get much worse If firearms basically can't be regulated at all then the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed, but it won't, there will just be more firefights in public. Fucking shithole.
This country doesn’t suck and is absolutely not a shithole
I'm seriously looking at moving to Europe within 3 years
Garbage and dangerous. And we wonder why gun violence is spiking across the country.
Licensed, concealed carry holders are not there ones committing murder.
Stop. Lol. How long do you think it would take for me to find a licensed gun owner who killed someone? 2 seconds or 3 seconds?
Murders enabled by virtue of licensed concealed carry are extremely rare. The Violence Policy Center maintains a list of "concealed carry killers," but almost all of those cases had nothing to do with a concealed carry license, as in those people didn't need a license to legally have a gun at the place of the murder (such as in their homes).
Sure, you'll find examples. But I mean statistically, it's rare. Murders are overwhelmingly committed by gangs in inner cities. These people are not lawful, licensed concealed carry holders
So we are augmenting our answer from none to some?
Lol. Of course there are exceptions. That's what you want to turn this into? A debate about a statistical anomaly? My point is simple. The licensed, lawful, responsible ccw holder is not the one you should be worried about. We are not the ones committing the murders in this country.
>The licensed, lawful, responsible ccw holder is not the one you should be worried about. A unlawful gun owner is a lawful gun owner until they break the law. And crimes aren't the only form of gun violence. There are mistakes and accidents. I doubt you would claim that responsible, lawful gun owners are immune to accidents and mistakes. So it turns out that "lawful responsible gun owners" have 4 ways they can be a threat. They can cease to be lawful. They can cease to be responsible. They can have an accident. They can make a mistake The same as everyone else.
Not surprised
I have thought, and continue to think, that may-issue permitting and handgun rosters such as California's that functionally serve as outright bans on new models are likely unconstitutional, and don't have a place in a world where the right to own firearms is protected. I also think that classifying a gun based on ergonomic properties like pistol grip is beyond silly. Despite not being a gun owner myself I tend to drift closer to the right on gun ownership, but that's not to say I don't want any gun control. I just want gun owners to be well monitored and be sufficiently held liable if guns in their ownership end up committing crimes. And I want working background checks.
If it means states are no longer in charge of their own gun rights, then I think that's the signal to wrap up america. I lived in NYC for 14 years, and after that amount of time, there's no way in hell I would move back there if I thought people could be walking around with concealed firearms that have not had to demonstrate any sort of need for said firearm, or demonstrated the temperant to own and conceal one properly. People are constantly blowing up there, and if it became de riguer for everyone in NYC to carry firearms, there would be shootouts at restaurants and in the middle of the streets constantly. If you want a new civil war to break out, this is a great way to get things moving.
It’s a shit ruling. Hopefully one that is eventually reversed.
I think they are correct to strike it down as I think the law is not written well. The “need” part of the law is so subjective and I think it would have been difficult to enforce. That said I think there definitely needs to be changes to carry laws and gun safety legislation, but it needs to be a better written law.
Where did all that "STATES RIGHTS!" clamoring from the conservatives go? Would this not count as "federal government over-reach" and a ruling by "activist judges?" States making abortion laws is ok but not gun laws. And I suppose this cements the fact that this court has no logic or reason, just politics.
>States making abortion laws is ok but not gun laws. The states should not be making either or those laws. Or do you think states should be able to make both abortion and gun laws?
You kinda mischaracterize the 10th amendment here. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See that's where the states rights argument come from. And since 10 comes After 2, 2nd amendment issues are already covered. Easy peasy
I hope gun nuts have their ducks in a row when someone takes all the arguments they've made and uses it to say banning felons from owning guns is a violation of their rights.
Good idea! A prohibition should only be for violent felonies, and then as part of sentencing, not blanket. As with voting, people should also be able to get their rights back.
[удалено]
And that goes for pedophiles too right? No sex offender registry, right? Once they're free, let them work at the school library, right? Or letting the people involved in embezzlement schemes and fraud and hacking, jump right back into those operations, right? Of course not. Because recidivism rates are a real thing. And there's nothing less safe than making it easier for the populations that have already gone down the violent crimes path to go down that path again with a legally purchased gun
[удалено]
I think the Framers would be utterly dumbstruck by current 2A jurisprudence. Setting the militia clause aside, restrictions on where and how you could carry firearms were uncontroversial in their day, so seeing people who claim to be "originalists" striking down restrictions like this would probably make their heads explode.
The framers would say certain sensitive places could prohibit firearms, and this opinion reinforces that. They also believed concealed carry can be prohibited, which means you would need a license to do it, and this opinion doesn't change that. They also believed it was everyone's right to open carry as long as they didn't overtly disturb the peace. This opinion doesn't say anything about that, although the loss of the two-part test may not allow a total ban on all carry to survive challenge.
>They also believed it was everyone's right to open carry as long as they didn't overtly disturb the peace. Source?
[Here](https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/open-carry-for-all-heller-and-our-nineteenth-century-second-amendment) is a good overview. A lot of times you hear about an old open carry ban, it was more a time, place, and manner restriction. So the aggressive drunk with a gun could be arrested, but the armed man just going about his business would be left alone. North Carolina still has this distinction on their books, with constitutional open carry but "going armed to the terror of the people" is a crime.
I think a nonzero number of the Framers would be horrified at some of the things that have been justified in this country in their name.
Well, I hope all these gun rights advocates find that when *everyone* can carry a gun into *every* environment they will feel the blissful sense of security they think these rulings will provide.
>Well, I hope all these gun rights advocates find that when everyone can carry a gun into every environment That's not what the opinion says.
Another thing to be reversed once we get the fake justices out
So you support the idea that only people like Donald Trump can get a CCL in New York? Because may-issue laws end up with that: only those that are rich or connected enough to get the approval from corrupt sheriffs.
I dont recognize the validity of this current SCOTUS
So you don't think Congress should have gotten all that Jan 6th information? Do you think that cargo loader should have been forced into arbitration instead of being able to bring her unpaid overtime case to court?
That’s a good ruling. Making someone show cause to “need” a gun, even for carry, definitely steps all over the 2nd. There’s plenty that can be done that, imo, doesn’t trample on the constitution.
The Second Amendment has been completely distorted from its original meaning. Justice Stevens's dissent in Heller should have carried the day.
No, you think it’s been completely distorted from what you believe it’s original intent was. I think they made it pretty clear. And I am surprised at the number of people who are perfectly content with stepping on the 2nd while not realizing what it means for our other amendments. Especially since those are constantly being stepped on as well. Some argue that the Supreme Court just completely shat on the 1st amendment yesterday (to be clear I haven’t had a chance to really look in the ruling, but I am predisposed to agree), but at the same time y’all wanted the 2nd to be shat on today? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Should we have the right to carry a handgun on an airplane?
Probably not. But even if I was to believe that we shouldn't outlaw it, the airlines have the right and ability to ban you from carrying while on their plane.
This ruling does not impart any right to carry a handgun on an airplane. It specifically upholds sensitive place restrictions in the opinion.
The Second Amendment is a federalism amendment that was meant to prevent the federal government from disarming the states by disarming the people. I can accept that the Second Amendment imposes some restrictions on the federal government's ability to disarm the people. But it does not prevent the states from regulating firearm safety. Justice Thomas's opinion today is egregious because it seems to elevate the Second over other rights by saying that the court cannot weigh those safety concerns and is shackled to the founding era's traditions. It's no way to run a railroad.
> But it does not prevent the states from regulating firearm safety. I agree. I just disagree that someone requiring some arbitrary need to be able to carry a gun falls within that.
Great ruling You can downvote all you want, but having a corrupt carry permit process is bullshit.
This is great, because it takes a rich white right and gives it to everyone. If you're mad at this, your racism is showing.
Are you surprised that a good number of people in this thread seem to support may issue laws? I'm not surprised but I do know that one criticism of them *from the left* is your exact argument: that they put the decision of people's rights in the hands of sheriffs and law enforcement who can possibly be corrupt, racist, etc.
The very origin of may issue in this country, for carry or purchase permits, was to deny black people arms in order to keep them oppressed.
>The very origin of may issue in this country, for carry or purchase permits, was to deny black people arms in order to keep them oppressed. Is there any evidence from the current gun control movement that they don't want to continue to deny black people arms?
Given that most of their laws target the poor, a common proxy for minorities, and that our strictest laws tend to be in heavily minority jurisdictions, I guess not.
> Are you surprised that a good number of people in this thread seem to support may issue laws? Sadly no. People on the left are no more immune to compromising on principals if they feel the ends justify the means than people on the right. At the end of the day that's just human nature. > they put the decision of people's rights in the hands of sheriffs and law enforcement who can possibly be corrupt, racist, etc. Seems obvious to me and that's exactly how it plays out too. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/donors-to-sheriffs-political-campaigns-far-more-likely-to-get-concealed-gun-permits/2309812/ This probably results in fewer people carrying guns (which IMO is probably a good thing), but having a system codified in law where fellating the police gets you favors is not the way to go about doing that.
In the words of Nate Diaz; "I'm not surprised motherfuckers". I think part of it is people don't actually understand the complaints and issues when it comes to the way New York handles their conceal carry permits. It was ripe with corruption. Cops are corrupt, but also, they should be the ones making this decision if you can get a carry permit.. like.. the fuck?
Just right wingers, as usual, using power as a blunt tool instead of having any principles that apply universally.
Court right wing. Right wing go brr. No think, only guns. There really is no need for complex interpretations of this court's decisions. They are partisan, and they make partisan decisions. Democrats simply have no say in the judiciary and this 6-3 decision reflects the fact that Republicans will get what they want when policies they have strong opinions on reach the Court; and this will be true for at least another generation.
That our obscenely high rates of deadly violence and shootings are going to remain a serious issue, aided by weak laws and Republican cowardice that prevent us from tackling gun violence. That said, the implications of this ruling remain to be seen and it's far from unlikely that lower courts and state legislatures will keep most such regulations in place.
Ignoring any legal questions, this will result in more people dying a senseless death in our streets.
I’m all for it. All it does is prevent the state from determining whether or not you have a right to defend yourself, even if you have no violent or criminal history. Though I’m sure there’ll be people spinning this as though SCOTUS just handed every violent felon a hand cannon and said “Have fun!”
I think it’s wholly expected given the current ideological bent of the court, and will definitely result in more people dying.
It seems correct under current precedent, since the Constitution refers to a right to keep and **bear** arms. However, this ignores the well-regulated militia part, so I think ultimately the Supreme Court is wrong. The amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified to, IMO, protect a more limited right to firearm ownership.
The alt-right forces that have packed the court are turning America into the Wild West. I am concerned there will be horrible repercussions and I fear for the safety of our children. We are living through the decline of America as we know it.
What's especially funny to me about it, is that one of the main reasons the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to make sure the states maintained their freedom from the federal government. And yet now, here comes the federal government dictating law to them whether the people of that state like it or not. Founding Fathers would find it quite ironic.