Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Amendment rights in more than a decade.

The 6-3 decision to invalidate New York’s law throws into question the legality of similar restrictions in more than a half dozen other states that give licensing officials wide discretion over concealed carry permitting.

The ruling broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives joining a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The New York law at issue required concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate a special need for a license, beyond a basic desire for self-defense. In striking down the law, the court’s conservatives ruled that the so-called “proper-cause requirement” prevented “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

 

Link

Seems like the constitutionally correct ruling.  It also just makes common sense as this law wouldn't stop a criminal from carrying a gun, only a law abiding citizen.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not carry a firearm or have I ever, but this seems like it was the correct thing to do.  The following shows it:

 

"This ‘special need’ standard is demanding," Thomas wrote. "For example, living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish that they would address Illinois FOID card issues. I know a woman that has been waiting a year and a half to get approved by a process which by law has to be done in 30 days. This isn't for conceal carry as that is separate. The FOID card is a requirement just to own or even touch a gun. Yes you legally can't even touch a gun without a card.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Myles said:

I do not carry a firearm or have I ever, but this seems like it was the correct thing to do.  The following shows it:

 

"This ‘special need’ standard is demanding," Thomas wrote. "For example, living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice."

It makes me curious what would qualify as a "special need".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time people choose guns over kids, we get that much closer to the second being altered or thrown out

We can't keep throwing more guns at the problem, people are fed up with the death and destruction in schools, and eventually you guys are going to have to accept some change to how we handle firearms in this country. If you won't allow more minor things to take on the problem, sooner or later, there'll be a constitutional convention and number 2 is gonna get changed. That's just how it is, sorry, but people don't like their kids getting shot, and they don't consider you cosplaying as Rambo worth an increasingly large pile of dead children. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I wish that they would address Illinois FOID card issues. I know a woman that has been waiting a year and a half to get approved by a process which by law has to be done in 30 days. This isn't for conceal carry as that is separate. The FOID card is a requirement just to own or even touch a gun. Yes you legally can't even touch a gun without a card.

Good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case is massively significant but the main significance ironically has nothing to do with concealed carry permits in New York.  

The real significance is that in the decision they completely destroyed the two step approach/intermediate scrutiny for second ammendment cases.  The 2nd and 9th circuit courts generally like using intermediate scrutiny to say that various gun regulations and bans are not violating the constitution.  Examples of stuff that the 2nd and 9th have used intermediate scrutiny on are stuff like large capacity magazine bans and California's assault weapon ban.  

After this decision it seems the lower courts will have to use only what is known as text, history, and tradition to determine if these gun regulations/restrictions are constitutional.  There is a good chance a lot of these gun laws in liberal states will be found to be violating the constitution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It makes me curious what would qualify as a "special need".

I'm guessing you would have to be a politician or other type of celebrity :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

eventually you guys are going to have to accept some change to how we handle firearms in this country

I can agree with that. Anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a crime gets executed after conviction and no dragging it out appeal after appeal, they get one automatic appeal after conviction and after failing the appeal it's time to fire up sparky.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I can agree with that. Anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a crime gets executed after conviction and no dragging it out appeal after appeal, they get one automatic appeal after conviction and after failing the appeal it's time to fire up sparky.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay, anybody got any ideas that isn't completely barbaric?

 image.png.e4b775d89317b5d24e3d5676f77c689b.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I can agree with that. Anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a crime gets executed after conviction and no dragging it out appeal after appeal, they get one automatic appeal after conviction and after failing the appeal it's time to fire up sparky.

Personally I'm against the death penalty because I don't believe the government should have the power of life and death over it's citizens.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Every time people choose guns over kids,

LMAO. You can't expect people to continue reading that with such a stupid opening to a comment.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zebra3 said:

LMAO. You can't expect people to continue reading that with such a stupid opening to a comment.

You could maybe make that argument if we'd had one mass shooting in recent memory...I can think of five just off the top of my head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

You could maybe make that argument if we'd had one mass shooting in recent memory...I can think of five just off the top of my head

And this overturned law would have prevented that, how?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I can agree with that. Anyone that uses a gun in the commission of a crime gets executed after conviction and no dragging it out appeal after appeal, they get one automatic appeal after conviction and after failing the appeal it's time to fire up sparky.

I don't agree with that, but I do want to see stricter penalties for crimes committed with a gun.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't agree with that, but I do want to see stricter penalties for crimes committed with a gun.

You have to realize who I was replying to. I got the desired effect.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The political left is melting down over this like the spoiled children they are. Don’t get what you want? Dissolve the Supreme Court!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

We can't keep throwing more guns at the problem, people are fed up with the death and destruction in schools, and eventually you guys are going to have to accept some change to how we handle firearms in this country.

We didn’t ban airplanes after September 11. We instead made airports and airplanes more secure. The hijackings stopped.
The most logical way to prevent school massacres would be to harden security at the schools, and providing proper training for the staff. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t get it. I thought Republicans were all about letting states decide? Or does that only apply when they feel like it?

The question is rhetorical btw. Going to be interesting to see the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding abortion after this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I don’t get it. I thought Republicans were all about letting states decide?

The 2nd Amendment isn't a right granted by government it is a restriction on government. The same applies to the others in the Bill of Rights.

Then you have Article 6 the Supremacy Clause

Quote

 

Article 6

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

 

Supremacy Clause describes the Constitution as “Law”

Furthermore unconstitutional laws were dealt with in 1803.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona 1966

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I don’t get it. I thought Republicans were all about letting states decide? Or does that only apply when they feel like it?

The question is rhetorical btw. Going to be interesting to see the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding abortion after this.

The states are allowed to decide. They are allowed to write gun laws within the confines of the constitution.  They are not allowed to violate the constitution.  The law was challenged and ruled to violate the 2nd amendment. It's not complicated.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, simplybill said:

We didn’t ban airplanes after September 11. We instead made airports and airplanes more secure. The hijackings stopped.
The most logical way to prevent school massacres would be to harden security at the schools, and providing proper training for the staff. 
 

Man if I have to get an enema from TSA to get on an airplane and can't bring toothpaste aboard, your gun toting backside can handle extra background checks, mental health screenings, and a limit on what kind of damage you can deal. 

And no, that's turning schools into, yknow, prisons. Just do the same thing they do everywhere else on earth that works just fine, gun control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.