Posted on 05/19/2022 12:03:01 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court is potentially poised to take down one of the nation’s oldest and most restrictive gun-control laws this summer. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen will be the court’s first major Second Amendment case in more than a decade and happens to be coming amid rising national gun violence and an uptick in gun sales in recent years. What the justices decide could unravel laws across the nation restricting who can carry guns in public.
Here’s what’s happening.
The case: Can New York place severe restrictions on who can carry a gun in public?
For 108 years, New York has said that anyone who wants to carry a gun in public must apply for a license, and he or she must be at least 21, have no criminal record, have “good moral character” and — this is the part really being challenged — a demonstrated need to carry the gun beyond average public safety fears. This is known as “proper cause.”
Two men from Upstate New York challenged the state’s law when they applied to carry a gun at all times but received allowances only for hunting or going to and from work. They sued, arguing the strict law violated their Second Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms.”.....
Gun violence there has doubled in recent years, from their historic lows in the years before the pandemic.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
You mean the SCOTUS might force NY to start obeying the constitution and stop infringing on Americans’ constitutional rights after getting away with it for more than a century?
Oh Noes!
NY has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Those laws FAILED to stop this latest shooter or the subway shooter before that. Get this, criminals don’t obey laws. Even if neither had been legally able to purchase a firearm, they both could have acquired one anyway. Lots of criminals do. They always will.
More guns does not equal more crime. From 1990 until a couple years ago the US cut the crime and murder rates in half even while the number of privately owned firearms doubled. More guns, less crime. Fact.
Also missing (I can’t imagine why) is a key demographic in this “gun violence discussion. “
“with the most restrictive gun control.”
And with the most lax bail policies. In NYC, the criminals are charged and released with no bail before the arresting officer is done with the paperwork.
That's what the Capitol and white house are for. What we need to do is get rid of their misconception that they're relevant and in charge.
Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s opinion for the court was arguably the worst he ever wrote. He ignored precedent, distorted history, imposed a rigid rather than a flexible construction on the Constitution, ignored specific grants of power in the Constitution, and tortured meanings out of other, more-obscure clauses.
This can be said of the majority of leftist judges.
In these times, a Supreme Court Justice will have to be either a craven coward, or a fearless hero. No middle ground. Be anything else, and you’ll be destroyed.
Sure, for about 5 minutes before DOJ gets there. Then you’ll be relocated with the J6 guys.
That would be a great double whammy. Kick abortion back to the states, and then tell the states they cant infringe on gun rights. The left will say right wing extremists are running things but we all know the truths, that’s following the constitution.
Creating the crisis. Just like Obama and holder running guns to Mexico.
Now it’s defund the police, let criminals out of jail, and stop putting them in jail. Bring in millions of illegals, spread them around the country and then for the icing, set off a few crackpots to complete a mass shooting, and walla...you have a national crisis to take away gun rights.
It’s what the dems do. They destroy in order to take power.
IMO that's a good sign.
Why not? Keep your demonstration on the street. Demonstrate peacefully. Your 1st amendment rights guarantee your abilitiy to do so.
But then came Comrade Wilhelm.
Dred Scott...90 paragraphs to show what rights US citizens had...., and 400 paragraphs to prove blacks were not citizens.
Let’s all hold demonstrations in front of the liberal justices homes so that they can see how passionate and peaceful we are about this subject.
Ah yes, maybe in your vernacular but here it's called a Concealed Pistol License.......Nice try....LOL!
I would say “free up” the RKBA not “expand.” The right itself is limitless it is simply the liberty to exercise the right that is restricted by law.
The court can “expand” our liberty to carry by ruling against unreasonable restrictions. That would remove about 95% of all firearms laws if the axed all of the unreasonable ones.
It would be real justice if they said that “shall not be infringed” means that in the same manner as there is respect for the 1st amendment to sweep away the various federal, state, and local laws that infringe.
It would be a neat trick for rights CANNOT be expanded or enlarged.
They are what they are.
Now if the headline writers want to appear to being owners of at least THREE functioning brain cells, they can start using the term PRIVILEGE instead of RIGHT.
For those FReepers who’d prefer to read the original article, rather than take an unnecessary through MSNland, and all that implies, will find it here: https://archive.ph/NK9O6
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.