Posted on 11/09/2021 9:44:28 AM PST by VictimsRightsPro2a
When it decides on NYSRPA v. Bruen—scheduled for oral arguments today—the Supreme Court will have a chance to stop governments from restricting the right to "bear arms."
The part of the Constitution guaranteeing that right has long been ignored by many state and local governments, despite previous Supreme Court rulings that there is an "individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" in the home.
The situation is worst in New York, California and six other "may-issue" states, where officials can turn down requests for a carry permit for any reason, or for no reason at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
I’m already expecting a disappointing decision.
I’m waiting for the Supreme Court to finally declare that “arms” is not just guns.
The Supreme Chickens are there to serve Fedzilla, not uphold the Constitution.
Which one of them stood up and stopped the Kenyanesian Usurpation?
That's the basis to NY's "restricted permit" pattern: legally, once you have a permit you may lawfully carry a pistol as though there are no restrictions applied ("restrictions" being the issuing judge writing on it whatever limits he sees fit), but if caught carrying it outside of restrictions (or if he just decides to), the judge can revoke the permit.
Dr. Lott, thanks for all your research and scholarship.
The Second amendment might have to be protected from tyrants (SCOTUS etc), by Patriots one day. Exercising their natural right to self defense.
5.56mm
Hang on... Newsweek said this?
BTTT
Yes, agree that the results may not be good. When evaluating justices, too much concern for abortion and none about the 2nd amendment. Probably none of these justices own or have owned firearms.
SCOTUS has had hundreds of opportunities over the decades. By rejecting petitions it has upheld many state and local bans, restrictions. Then in Heller SCOUTS comes out says “if the restriction is long standing, it is constitutional.”
***”individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” in the home. ***
An earlier decision in 1857 gave a different interpretation to it.
Dred Scott VS Sandford
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as CITIZENS in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Because Dred Scott is no longer valid, it does not mean that the RKBA is no longer valid.
Yah, I expect weasel words out of the Court and not an affirmation of a fundamental human right to self defense against all brigands including those sent hither to eat out our substance.
# SCOTUS has had hundreds of opportunities over the decades. By rejecting petitions it has upheld many state and local bans, restrictions. Then in Heller SCOUTS comes out says “if the restriction is long standing, it is constitutional.”
Barrett had a very strong dissent in a 2nd Amendment case. So far, I’m pretty disappointed with her on the bench.
After having read through the oral arguments on this case, I’m expecting a very narrow ruling. It seems that some amendments are more equal than others.
Negative thinkers are always right........... or pleasantly surprised.
The beloved (at least here)Scalia was among those that said some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms was totally OK. He also allowed burning of the US flag as protected speech when it fact it was simple incitement to riot. I still wonder what he was doing on that trip when he died.
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.