Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York Effectively Nullifies The Supreme Court’s Latest Pro-Second Amendment Decision
thefederalist ^ | 7/05/2022 | margot cleveland

Posted on 07/05/2022 12:15:35 PM PDT by bitt

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, both in their homes and in public. On Friday, New York responded that it didn’t care.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ushered in the long Independence Day weekend on Friday by signing into law legislation crafted in response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Just more than a week earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen had declared that New York’s prior “may issue” gun licensing scheme, which prohibited individuals from carrying concealed handguns unless they “demonstrate[d] a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” violated the Second Amendment. In reaching that conclusion, the high court stressed that the right to “bear arms,” by necessity, applies outside the home.

The New York legislature responded by calling an extraordinary session and then passing the bill Hochul signed into law on Friday. That hastily passed statute established detailed regulations governing a citizen’s right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon and added restrictive limits to where such concealed weapons could be carried. Both aspects of the New York legislation run headlong into the Supreme Court’s analysis in Bruen—and potentially First Amendment jurisprudence.

(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: banglist; bidenvoters; harassment; hochul; illegalregime; newyork; noauthority; scotus; secondamendment; thesupremecourt; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 last
To: Triple

In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

“All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Marbury v. Madison


61 posted on 07/05/2022 2:13:23 PM PDT by justme4now (Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Houserino

They can sure try to.


62 posted on 07/05/2022 2:27:22 PM PDT by glimmerman70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bitt

So where is the announcement that NY is on its way to court over all of this?


63 posted on 07/05/2022 2:37:29 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

The commies in Albany cannot help themselves. This new so called law will be quickly ignored then overturned. Long Isalnd and NYC are the trouble areas . In Suffolk alone ,it is taking close to 2 years just to obtain a “sportsman” permit!!!!


64 posted on 07/05/2022 2:45:09 PM PDT by MGunny ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
You may not have noticed, but the Left has stopped arguing with you. They have set their course, their end point is your and your people's destruction, by any means necessary.

Truer words may have never been spoken.

65 posted on 07/05/2022 3:34:04 PM PDT by voicereason (The RNC is like the "one-night stand" you wish you could forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim W N

Incorrect. Unlike the First Amendment, which starts with Congress shall make no law, ... the Second Amendment has no qualifiers. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This should legally strike down as moot the New York law, any church, school, bar, or courtroom prohibition, any individual store, residence, etc. provision. However, a business could exercise the right to refuse service (but not the right to carry).


66 posted on 07/05/2022 4:07:30 PM PDT by bIlluminati (Demonetize the Left. Buy nothing from them. Sell nothing to them. Shun them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: basalt

Especially if the person requesting a firearm had damages - death, disability, theft. The legislature, governor, and any law enforcement can and should be held personally liable, and their insurance should refuse to pay, on the basis of intentionally violating the personal right to self-defense.


67 posted on 07/05/2022 4:10:03 PM PDT by bIlluminati (Demonetize the Left. Buy nothing from them. Sell nothing to them. Shun them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PMAS

CA does.

But not a background check on your target.


68 posted on 07/05/2022 4:49:59 PM PDT by Scrambler Bob (My /s is more true than your /science (or you might mean /seance))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bIlluminati

You correctly read the Constitution when you read it as written and originally understood and intended. If a clause is clear, you take it as is. If a clause is unclear or ambiguous , then you look to the the original understanding of the clause and the intent of the ratifiers. The intent of the RATIFIERS, who turn a proposal into law and who turned the Constitution into the Supreme Law of the Land and created the Untied States of America, is dispositive in correctly interpreting and applying the Constitution.

A look at the the background of the first 10 amendments will tell you that Madison wrote them as an answer to the antifederalists who did not want a federal government because they were afraid it would become what it now has become 250 years later. As a way of getting the antifederalists to join in ratifying the Constitution, Madison and the Founders promised they would include the first ten amendments to at least clarify to the nay-sayers some of the most important right of the people and the states those that already belonged to them.

The LAST thing the antifederalists, critical to the ratification of the Constitution, would agree to would be ADDING MORE power to the federal government.

The only powers delegated to the feds were those enumerated in the body of the Constitution. Anything limiting the states were also in the body on the Constitution. States were limited by only a few things like prohibitions from coining money and making treaties. These things are clarified in the 9A and the 10A. (The first 10 amendments were ratified 3.5 years after the Constitution was ratified.)


69 posted on 07/05/2022 5:14:57 PM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ (Jude 3) and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Jim, as usual you are on to something.

I would add that one more layer of the onion can be peeled. There is no point in arguing with leftists who are operating with an entirely different software operating system. In other words, the Frankfurt School has provided the left with a worldview, critical theory, that permits them to dispense with reality and engage in a method of thinking which is entirely self-contained, cultish, and impervious to reason, logic or science.

Since they don't share any of our values because they don't even share our culture, our enlightenment, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our scientific method or our idea of tolerance, they simply don't compute whether our Constitution with its Bill of Rights is worth preserving. It simply doesn't matter to them.

So, if we are to prevail in this war-and it is a war-we must find a way to break through their bubble and break down their system of thinking so that we can then effectively argue the particulars with a human even capable of understanding.


70 posted on 07/05/2022 6:38:04 PM PDT by nathanbedford (Attack, repeat, attack! - Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

very good observation


71 posted on 07/07/2022 4:23:55 PM PDT by AFPhys ((Liberalism is what Smart looks like to Stupid people - ® - Mia of KC. Rush - 1:50-8/21/15))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson