USSC rules 6 to 3 in favor of gun rights

APnews.com ^ | June 23, 2022 | JESSICA GRESKO

[JimBianchi11]

USSC rules in favor of gun rights. Huge win for the 2A!!

[JimBianchi11]

Excellent new for the 2A!!

[rktman]

More commentary here:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4073346/posts

🔫😂🙌

[ConservativeInPA]

Meanwhile a minimum of 14 Republican Senators are working day and night to grab your guns. What’s wrong with that picture?

[skeeter]

In the words of a celebrity recently in the news “alrightalrightalright”

[V_TWIN]

It’s a damn shame it’s even in question.

[traditional2]

I know this Ruling really was a no-brainer, but I’m hoping it’s not just greasing the skids for the Case when the NEW “Red Flag” B.S. Law is challenged, and it gets Upheld, so we can target the Opposition by calling them “Mentally Unfit” to be armed against the “Progressives” and “Gimme-dats”.

[Rinnwald]

Yay. It only took a hundred years.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

My favorite selected excerpts From Thomas Clarence’s Opinion...

(In Heller) we looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.”

After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

We therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct — carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. We have little difficulty concluding that it does.

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.

Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.

Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.

After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. “[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”.

The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

[justme4now]

More B.S. Rulings!

All of the so called Constitutionalists worship at the feet of the court instead of where it belongs .. the Constitution!

A Real meaningful decision on "gun laws" would be that all Gun Laws are infringements and cannot stand!

All these "decision's" do is affirm what Biden and the left claim which is .. "no amendment is absolute!"

But the fact is: All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government .. Not on the people!

The SCOTUS is supposed to be under the control of the constitution but as it is .. they are elevated to a higher position by everyone who should know better!

A simple explanation:

[Born in 1950]

“What’s wrong”

Individuals abdicated their natural rights by placing them in the hands of others.

[muir_redwoods]

Years ago, former cop Bo Diedl assisted Radio personality Don Imus in getting a NYC carry permit. Bo explained that, as a celebrity, Imus should have no problem getting such a permit unlike common people who could never qualify. That attitude right there is what went wrong with the Sullivan law.

[rainee]

The libs are melting down over this!

[Regulator]

You are of course correct, but it does appear that this court - the Trump court as his appointees have now swung the balance - are attempting to make amends and back away from places they realize the Court should not have gone.

[Starboard]

Meanwhile a minimum of 14 Republican Senators are working day and night to grab your guns.

***************

No one should be surprised by this.

But we should never accept this blatantly unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.

We need to hold everyone of these RINOs accountable and remove them from office.

[Starboard]

Individuals abdicated their natural rights by placing them in the hands of others.

************

More people care about government largesse than they do about natural rights.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Charlie Kirk is discussing the Supreme Court decisions right now

https://americasvoice.news/

Charlie Kirk took over the noon slot following Bannon on Monday.

He is doing a great job of unpacking major issues.

[ConservativeInPA]

We need to hold everyone of these RINOs accountable and remove them from office.

Look at the number of them that are retiring or will lose in the next election. Arlen Toomey will vote for the latest gun grab, but he knows he has no help in hell of being reelected, so he retired. Of course, our potential next Senator in PA is Dr. Oz. I doubt if their is any difference between Dr. Oz, Arlen Toomey or Pat Spector. They are all interchangeable components manufactured to specification. I'm ashamed that Trump endorsed Oz. It is a sickening decision.

[Jane Long]

Hallelujah!!

[LS]

Decision (66 pp) by Thomas. Says no other right in the Bill of Rights needs state or local approval to be exercised.

Supes also ruled positively in NC GOP’s favor on redistricting.

So far, Supes are really, really strong this term. The SEC decision (which was I think a 4th Circuit) was also huge.

Now, when they come in on Dobbs and the EPA, you will be able to drive from Kollyfornia to NY by the light of exploding lib heads.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

thanks for posting the excerpt