This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 11/03/2021 11:33:29 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed ready to strike down a restrictive New York gun permitting law, but the justices also seemed worried that a broad ruling could threaten gun restrictions on subways, bars, stadiums and other gathering places.
The court was hearing arguments in its biggest guns case in more than a decade, a dispute over whether New York's law violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservative members of the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, suggested New York's law goes too far. Why, Roberts asked, does a person seeking a license to carry a gun in public for self defense have to show a special need to do so. “The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Can California be far behind?
watch crime start to plummet...
as soon as they recognize the second amendment as everyone’s permit
Knock me over with a feather.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Except for the almost laughable line of calling Roberts a conservative.
Roberts will declare it a tax and not a restriction if he can find a way to do so.
Roberts will declare it a tax and not a restriction if he can find a way to do so.
me too. constitutional carry?
Ditto!
Don’t know who kidnapped and replaced John Roberts on the supreme Court but I say they should keep him. I like this John Roberts.
Seriously? How simple is this: property-holder makes the call, on anything that does not create an undue burden on the right to bear arms.
Yankees don’t want guns... fine, no guns in Yankee Stadium. NY Thruway doesn’t want guns... tough shot, it’s an undue burden to avoid a public highway in transportation. Not sure where all the gray areas shake out (Amtrak? Subways?) but that’s why legislatures, not courts, make laws. Too bad upholding your oaths to uphold the constitution is unfashionable; it might mean the courts might have to presume to defend those gray areas.
It’s that damned NRA, or sumpthin.
If a Public SERVANT doesn't want to go where a Citizen is armed on his own property he can go to Cuba and be a Public "Servant" there.
In a perfect world, yes, of course nationwide Constitutional Carry would be the only possible result from this case.
But practically speaking, the most we can hope for is a ruling that banishes "may issue" as practiced in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
Look for licensing requirements in those states to change to onerous burdens such as 40 hours of training, mandatory liability insurance, and severe penalties for very minor infractions.
And don't expect national reciprocity in this ruling, either. That will have to be separately litigated and will take another decade to reach the Supremes.
Hopefully I'm grandfathered :)
Read it right. It’s just the style of writing back then. Those are two separate sentences. AND they appear as separate sentences in the Constitution for the State of Vermont and other states.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_i4dk.pdf
Reading the transcript, I am not so certain we’ll get the blanket ruling. It’ll be narrow and cowardly.
“... nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer ...” Andrew Cuomo
“I like this John Roberts.”
Wait until the final decision...you won’t like that John Roberts.
Any decision of consequence for the Deep State, Roberts ***ALWAYS*** lines up with the DS side of the case, at least since the original Obamacare decision. I am convinced that he is compromised, and that he was told that he can rule as he sees fit, except in cases where it is communicated to him that he has to vote a certain way, or else.
Or humor. Maybe humor would've been better for that post.
I dunno, so many tags, so little time.
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.