Posted on 06/24/2022 4:13:22 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
n a 6-3 decision reflecting the sharp partisan divide on the nation’s highest court, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s century old gun law against conceal carry on Thursday. New Yorkers and residents of a handful of other states and Washington D.C.—which had more strictly regulated who can have a conceal-carry permit—must now accept the type of laws popular in Texas and other red states. The decision was hardly a surprise to court watchers, but the opinion is nonetheless troubling on many levels. The fact that this opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, an originalist so rigid in his thinking that Justice Antonin Scalia once used him as a foil to distinguish his respect for precedent—”I’m an originalist and a textualist, not a nut,” Scalia quipped— contrasting the burn it all down approach favored by his laconic colleague. Thomas has long been a proponent of super sizing the Second Amendment and has argued—against strong statistical evidence—that lower courts were treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right. Justice Thomas and his fellow originalists have set out to analogize the Second Amendment to core free speech rights, a bizarre legal analogy with little foundation in either legal history or tradition. ....
Just looking at the history of firearms law in nation’s largest cities undermine the central claim in Bruen. As the table below shows, all of the nation’s largest cities were living under some form of restrictive public carry regime by the end of the 19th century. Many of these laws were enacted during Reconstruction, or soon after. Thomas not only ignores this evidence, but he also ignores recent scholarship showing that these laws were enforced in a racially neutral fashion for decades before white supremacists turned them against Black people.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
A 6-3 decision reflects a sharp partisan divide? It seems pretty solid.
These are the same people who want to impose 187 pronouns on other people under penalty of law.
Isn’t it charming when a Leftist goes originalist?
I thought the Founders were White Slave owning guys who
cared nothing about rights.
Now all of a sudden this guy is desperate, so even he
will claim originalist intent if it serves Communism’s
purposes.
“Shall not be infringed” is just as clear as “natural born citizen”, but obfuscating their clarity has been the MO of opponents of the Constitution for decades.
In spite of liberals raining hate on him 24/7/365, Judge Thomas seems to be getting bolder in his publicly issued statements. He is not retreating to a mute status. The old fashioned expression would be to say
“Judge Thomas is feeling his oats!”
Working with Judge Alioto is a big help.
Alioto does not appear to be primarily guided by fear either.
Time to go for reciprocity.
Pointing to state or local gun laws in existence prior to then is meaningless.
The funny thing is that this point is addressed in the opinion I believe, by noting that post 1860 laws are not a good measure of Constitutional intent. Gee, what happened around 1860 and who got the right to bear arms after 1865?
Does this sound approving?
"Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
I hate these commie bastards.
Since when do these anti-America commie jackasses care what the “original” Founders thought or what they put in the Constitution?
This country has gone absolutely upside down. The US-hating treasonous commies have somehow, suddenly turned, and love the Founders, love the Constitution and hate Russia.
Nope, not buying it. They still hate their own country and everything about it.
One of the elephants in the room is why SCOTUS failed to clearly incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states after the Civil War. I think it’s partly race, but also fear of immigrant mobs of Irish, Germans, Greeks, Italians and other “undesirables.”
How is the 14th A affecting most of the cities listed, then, if it was 1867 or so?
You couldn’t get to a liberal answer with normal people logic, so they gotta do what they gotta do.
I agree absolutely. I shouldn’t have to leave my gun at home while traveling cross country. Not sure how or if it effects other states.
One of the biggest was they feared another Civil War. The governments of the Southern states had resorted to, essentially, low level warfare against the occupation of the South by the radical Republicans and the Union Army.
After the hotly contested election of 1876, where the presidency ended up in the House of Representatives, a compromise was reached. The South would accept the Republican President, on condition the Union Troops be removed from the Southern states.
Enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment could very well have pushed the Republic back into open warfare.
So, the Supreme Court refused to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and that lasted for a generation.
>> Since when do these anti-America commie jackasses care what the “original” Founders thought or what they put in the Constitution?
A typical ploy of the leftists: do anything to attempt to show that conservatives, who actually have principles, are not living up to them.
That’s one we can’t do to them, since they have no principles.
Self defense isn't as fundamental of a right as speaking one's mind?
Either Saul is a lying hate-America propagandist or he's a schizophrenic with the mental state of someone on a 10,000 microgram D-Lysergic acid trip.
There is really no middle ground between those possibilities for someone who makes a statement that stupid.
Was the question of the Second Amendment creating a personal right itself even resolved at that time? And if so, was the incorporation of that right ever before SCOTUS prior to Heller?
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.