Posted on 07/19/2023 2:28:18 PM PDT by rellimpank
It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court for the first time struck down a gun control law, ruling the 2nd Amendment protected the "right of law-abiding, responsible citizens" to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.
Last year, the court went a step further and said an "ordinary law-abiding citizen" also has a right to a state permit to carry a concealed weapon in public for self-defense.
Now the justices face a new frontier: Do gun rights extend to dangerous people and dangerous weapons?
In just the last year, accused criminals and felons including drug dealers and domestic abusers have won gun rights claims by arguing that in 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, the new nation did not have broad restrictions on firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
The Supreme Court isn’t “expanding” the Second Amendment. It’s removing unconstitutional restrictions.
That was my thought.
Yup.
This is a big moment the people of California have been waiting for. Even with the restrictions that the people of the state never asked for, you still have had huge amounts of gun sales
Why is it that the media gets down on drug users and criminals when they’re talking about gun control, but are fine with them when talking about them shoplifting, violent crime and crapping in the street?
‘zackly.
With regard to firearms, can David G. Savage describe the distinction between a "dangerous" and a "non-dangerous" weapon?
Do gun rights extend to dangerous people and dangerous weapons?
= = =
OK, just what is an “un dangerous weapon”?
Buy weapons and ammo, folks and our next law to destroy is the National Firearms act of 1934. If Roe versus Wade can be over turned, the NFA can be ruled unconstitutional.
Restores. Not expands.
If these people are so dangerous - why aren’t they still in prison? If they have done their time they should be allowed to have weapons again. Like a car, a saw, kitchen knifes, etc.
Urinalists today huh!?
You really need to read the 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy. You will see why it is highly suppressed and out of print. Below is an on line copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
One would hope that SCOTUS understands that there are states whose legislators and judges have open contempt for the 2nd Amendment.I suspect that might be true given “Caetano v Massachusetts” and the Bruen decision.
BINGO!
Effing hate the LA Slimes.
If the guns go so does the democracy with in 24 months.
We have seen what democrats think of the Supreme Court. Biden has shown all their rulings can simply be ignored.
California is the largest market for guns in the country, in spite of the laws there.
A lot of professional competition shooters live there, too (even in places like Livermore).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.