Posted on 05/11/2022 10:34:53 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
By tradition, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) holds its most controversial rulings until the final days of the session, which wraps up later this month, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen will not be the last battle.
Certainly, an affirmative ruling — meaning a decision by the court to nullify the long-standing “good cause” requirement for carry permits in New York State — would be shattering not only for anti-gun-rights Empire State bureaucrats, but for similarly empowered people in states with similar requirements. We’re talking about New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, Delaware (Joe Biden’s home state), Connecticut and Massachusetts. A favorable outcome would strengthen the Second Amendment, but it won’t be the last word.
If the high court strikes down the New York requirement, as many anticipate at this writing, the other states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. Demagoguery dies hard and bureaucrats hate to give up any power they have over the public, especially involving the exercise of the right to bear arms, as well as keep them.
What’s at stake here is not just the rights of people involved in the lawsuit, but the generations of citizens whose rights have been violated by these laws and who never had the chance for relief. Nobody has ever talked about this because it’s an inconvenient truth. If the law is found unconstitutional, it has always been so. We can’t retroactively hold all of those people accountable who enforced the laws in decades past but we can put candidates and incumbents on the spot to make sure we vote against anybody who thinks the right needs to be restricted.
(Excerpt) Read more at gunsmagazine.com ...
Here’s what the SCOTUS needs to address:
The 2nd amendment outlines a right to A) keep and B) bear arms.
If a state does not allow open carry and is a may issue state for concealed carry......which effectively means you cannot get a concealed carry permit unless you are very wealthy or politically connected....then how is a citizens’ right to bear arms being respected?
A state should have to allow either open carry OR it should have to be a must issue state for concealed carry purposes. Otherwise it is denying the right to bear arms.
Yes. Infringements on defined rights need to be kept as minimal as possible. It’s not just 2nd Amendment rights, but all others, too.
“A state should have to allow either open carry OR it should have to be a must issue state for concealed carry purposes.”
That’s pretty much what SCOTUS said in McDonald. It’s why Illinois finally instituted a CCL process.
L
Stripping the “right” to abort babies AND affirming the right to keep and bear arms would make this the most amazing SCOTUS session I can remember.
And "shall not be infringed".
What the court should do is a full reset. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore since all federal, state, and local laws infringe, they are unconstitutional.
There’s no “good cause” requirement in Connecticut. True it’s a “may issue” state but no good cause is required. It takes about 2-3 months and an NRA safety course.
Notice also, that it says “keep and bear ARMS”, not just pistols. Knives, tasers, and rifles are also arms.
The idea is to make it quite impractical for you to possess a firearm in public. The super-liberal illogical legislators just keep in creating marginal statutes or local town ordinances to make the possession "illegal" almost anyplace yo go. On USPS property or even parking lot? A no-no if you get caught and searched for other causes.
In PA at least the law requires government buildings with no concealed carry to provide a gun check storage option where they log your sidearm in and put it in a locker while you are in the building. This is for courthouses and the Capitol Building and is spelled out in the statute.
Only for state or local governments. The state government regulations stop at the property line of federally=-owned land. The executive branch of the Federal government there. Even the SCOTUS has no power there.
So the government could outlaw paperback books as long as it allowed hard-bound books?
I believe that our Founders intended for the federal government to have no say whatever about how people of the various states carried firearms.
The concept of “incorporating” the Bill of Rights should insure that the various states have no say in how people carry firearms.
Many people at the time of our founding considered it “unfair” to conceal the ability to wield a weapon. Today people consider it “threatening” to carry openly. The Supreme Court should recognize both opinions as merely fasion statements and disallow the banning of either.
You cannot even have a pocket screwdriver,
= = =
So they cannot get ‘screwed’, I guess.
But their lifestyle includes a lot of screwing, so ?????
A) keep and B) bear arms.
= = =
I analyze ‘keep’ as someone would ‘keep’ livestock.
Possess, feed, care for, breed (propagate), buy and sell, share with neighbors, take to town, show and tell at the Fair, etc.
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.