New York will pass a new law and start the legal process over again in five, four, three...
Meanwhile over in the backstabbing offices, uh, I mean Senate, the push continues to pass unconstitutional rules and regulations. While telling the serfs it’s not in contradiction of the BOR. đđ©
If you fire a shot, make sure you have your lawyer on speed dial.
Everyone needs to understand that had Donald John Trump NOT been elected to office in 2016, there would be no 2nd Amendment today.
Restrictions on carrying firearms are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Red flag laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Restricting firearms purchases for adults until they are older adults is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Cornyn, Collins, Cassidy, Blunt, Burr, Portman, Capito, Murkowski, Ernst, Tillis, Romney, McConnell, Graham and Young can suck on this!
Time to begin the process of removing each and every one of these traitors to the Republic!
Look up NYC “Sullivan Gun Laws”.
It was one political gang trying to disarm the other political gang. Nothing to do with the people, their safety or the Constitution.
NYS adopted most of them.
NYS will dream up a whole new string of processes to bollocks up your inalienable right to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Let it go Wild Wild West for a year or 2,
then peace will settle over Gotham.
“Just what the Big Apple needs! Supreme Court strikes down New York gun law restricting concealed carry in major Second Amendment case”
YES! and isn’t great!!!
If it weren’t for guns we would still be kissing the queen’s ash.
And now what Surrender Monkey Caucus?
Still think the Republicans didn’t out smart Chuckie?
The Second Amendment supports the God given right to self defense. She still doesn’t get it.
Where did I read that an increase in legal carriers in Philadelphia led to an increase in “justified homicides”, i.e. removal of bad guys by citizens executing the “taxpayer relief shot”.
Being a criminal in NYC just got a little bit more dangerous.
An armed society is a polite society, dummies at the Daily Mail.
Go back to your Ukraine stories.
My favorite selected excerpts From Thomas Clarence’s Opinion...
(In Heller) we looked to history because âit has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.â The Amendment âwas not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.â
After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found âno doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Kochâs and Nashâs proposed course of conduct â carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does.
Nothing in the Second Amendmentâs text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller further confirmed that the right to âbear armsâ refers to the right to âwear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.â
This definition of âbearâ naturally encompasses public carry.
Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often âkeepâ firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not âbearâ (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to âbearâ arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendmentâs operative protections.
Moreover, confining the right to âbearâ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is âthe central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.
After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an âindividual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,â Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.
Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps âmost acuteâ in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. â[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Towerâ.
The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.
The Second Amendmentâs plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to âbearâ arms in public for self-defense.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not âa second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.â We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendantâs right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New Yorkâs proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
NY will follow DC’s lead and ignore the ruling via legislation and regulations. But what about the garbage pending in Congress? Seems like it needs to be sent back for a major rewrite.
Well... yeah. That's exactly what it does.
And street gangs/members laugh.
It’s a step in the right direction. But blue cities and states have ways of slow walking purchase and carry.
Today the Supreme Court leveled the playing field between a potential victim and a would-be perpetrator.
Maybe SCOTUS issued Bruen before Dobbs as a warning re: the psychotic Left taking matters into their own hands.
Given the complete lack of law and order since they don’t seem to imprison criminals any more, this is EXACTLY what the rotten apple needed.
What took so long?