Posted on 07/01/2022 4:39:11 AM PDT by marktwain
The Supreme Court opinion on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was released on June 22, 2022. It is a 6 to 3 opinion, which upholds the Second Amendment as applying outside the home and rebukes Circuit Courts for creating an unnecessarily complicated two step process in applying Second Amendment protection to statutes. The opinion is 135 pages long.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts, and Justice Barrett in concurring opinions. Justice Alito and Barrett concur in full. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts simply concur.
Looking at history can aid in the understanding, but what was meant at the time of ratification is key. In addition, the Second Amendment became applicable to state governments with the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, so what was meant by the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of ratification is also important.
Justice Thomas cites Caetano v. Massachusetts as one way the Court has adopted the Second Amendment to modern realities.
Thomas clarifies all parties agree the Second Amendment applies outside the home. The respondents, who try to defend the New York “may issue” law, attempt to render the Second Amendment meaningless, by giving state authorities the power to decide who the Second Amendment applies, on a case-by-case basis.
Quotes from the opinion show Thomas correctly points out Second Amendment rights apply to ordinary, law-abiding adults. From Page 3 :
It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Well done, Dean.
L
Dean, you are the best. Thanks for this wonderful article.
This.
Is.
Great.
Thomas is my all-time favorite Supreme Court Justice. He stands right there with William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. Right there.
I am putting Justice Thomas on my Freep Page in my gallery of heroes.
This ruling is very meaningful for me. I come from one of those states mentioned (California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland)
When I applied for my carry permit, I had to write a letter explaining why. I did it, because I had no choice. But it grated on me.
So far, this court is ranking as the best ever, to me.
That is a man. A real man.
Not bad! This really is the core:
“One of the clear purposes of the Constitution is to place certain things outside of government power. A core philosophical building block of Progressive thought is limits on governmental power are bad. This is not the philosophy the Constitution was based upon.”
It’s shameful that the U.S. Consitution still, after all these years, nearly stands alone as the founding document with the intent to confine government and rightly assign the rest to us, rather than to enumerate what the people may do and leave the rest to whatever maniac wrestles his way onto the levers of government.
Looking at history can aid in the understanding, but what was meant at the time of ratification is key.
~~~~
Why doesn’t this principle apply to the equal protection and birthright citizenship clauses of the 14th Amendment?
ny has put out a list where guns are not allowed....pretty much covers any place outside the home.
I haven’t read everything about this decision, but in all I’ve seen there’s no mention of open/concealed carry.
When SCOTUS refers to carrying, which one are they talking about? Because, speaking of two-step processes, in some states you can open carry but you need a special permission for concealed.
I love Dean - hope he can do this for another 50 years. His style is about as good as any writer I’ve ever read.
Thanks for posting!
It does, but isn’t practiced.
Just had a discussion recently about the difference between “may” and “shall”.
I ended it with the now infamous “Depends on what the meaning of “is” is”. Everyone laughed!
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
i stand with justice thomas.
“When SCOTUS refers to carrying, which one are they talking about?”
Both, actually. Basically the decision says that a State can not create a regulatory scheme that ends up denying a law abiding citizen their right to carry a firearm for personal defense. “May issue” systems across the country have been declared un-Constitutional.
If a State wishes to allow open carry they are free to do so. If they wish to ban it they are free to do so. If they wish to have a straightforward licensing scheme they can do that, too. But that scheme can not have the effect of allowing some government official to decide who does or does not have “good cause” to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right.
Go read the decision for yourself. Thomas’s in particular.
L
Very interesting and well done article.
I don’t want to be trite but isn’t that New York’s option? And if that’s New York’s option then the change comes about with New York voters, that’s the hard part.
The pressure to change is economic in nature. We’re witnessing that now.
Does the constitution state in no uncertain terms that although this man enjoys his full 1A and 6A rights, the 2A is different in this regard?
Thomas is clearly shining a light on the road to full restoration of 2A rights when he states that 2A is not a second class right that is subject to “special” restrictions in perpetuity.
The man has been rehabilitated by the state and is therefore granted full restoration of his American citizen status.
Thank you, Justice Thomas! Thank you, President in Exile Trump for giving him much needed back-up!
For all the other cr@p going on with Brandon & Crew, I cannot BELIEVE some of the excellent decisions coming out of the Court!
Praise Be! Amen! But, still plan accordingly. The rabid Socialist Democrat minions are not going to allow us a quiet summer by any means.
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.