USSC rules 6 to 3 in favor of gun rights

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

[jagusafr]

“The court’s decision is somewhat out of step with public opinion.”

Which is precisely why SCOTUS is there: to interpret the Constitution, not follow public opinion. Glad they got this one right.

[itsahoot]

Thomas is just wrong here, the 2nd did not confer a right it confirmed that the right came from God and that the government had no right to infringe it period.

[itsahoot]

Bingo Ben, rights are either God given or government given, the 2nd affirms that and English custom had nothing to do with it any more that Specter’s Scottish law had to do with our shame Snarlen Arlin brought to us.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I agree with you in principal but I am taking “confer” in cotext to what Justice Thomas is writing in that specific passage.

I believe he is talking about the Right to keep and bear arms being confered from British law to American law.

Thomas believes in Natural Law. I have no doubt in my mind he would agree with you that the Constitution recognizes natural or God-given Rights, rather than creating them. So I really believe in my heat of hearts what Thomas is doing here is a little political strategem for Democrats who want to believe the USA created some Right to keep and bear arms here. He is not even going there. He is say, hey we already had that right under British law and we are just transfering it here to the USA. The right pre-existed the US Constitution.

It sounds legal, not absolute to me. I am sure in my heart that Justice Thomas knows Rights are natural or God-given, and not created by scraps of paper that can just be crumpled up and so the Rights evoked.

[JimBianchi11]

Half the states now are Constitutional Carry, know your local laws.

[SauronOfMordor]

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

I read the decision. Besides seeming to strike down "may issue" in favor of nationwide "shall issue", the decision may serve as a basis to challenge "red flag" laws nationwide as a violation of due process with respect to a Constitutional right.

The majority opinion put the 2and Amendment on the same level as the First Amendment, meaning any infringement would be subject to strict scrutiny.

[Starboard]

the rest of us relied on an agreement with those people

***********

I have always assumed that Social Security (a misnomer if ever there was one) would be reduced in some way.

If the government was responsible we wouldn’t have a $30+ trillion debt with Unfunded Liabilities to the tune of $170 trillion.

But the government will take care of itself. You can count on that.

[traditional2]

WRONG. The devil is in the details, and you think it’s a “WIN”? GRANTS for states to do what in the mental health area? To ESTABLISH “fact-checkers”, per se, that can deem people to be a “mentally un-stable” threat (such as for political/patriotic views), and prevent their gun ownership.

The camel’s nose is now in the tent, and won’t stop until all these Progressive maggots control your every movement, your personal liberty, and what speech is “appropriate”, IN THEIR OPINION.

Ignoring the warning signs and slippery slope is what got the former America to where it is today. You need to wake up.

[Wayne07]

If you calm down and re-read what I wrote, I said it is a net win to get the Supreme Court decision.

If your state has red flag laws, then vote in a better state government, or move to a better state. The bill actually forces due process into red flag laws, so it will improve things in blue states like California. Net win there too.

[justme4now]

Thank You!
And for those that seemed to have missed it ..

The Supreme Court answered another important question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. City of Chicago

A case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

This would make "red flag" laws unconstitutional in states as well!

Just another forgotten or ignored ruling by everyone!🥴

[justme4now]

I hope you see my last post.
SCOTUS already ruled that any law that violates the constitution federally also applies to the states!

McDonald v. City of Chicago

[William Tell]

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

I was a little disappointed after my first quick reading. There is much in the decision that I wish was not there.

However, a little creative editing creates the following:
"Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a rifle/handgun distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms." Since rifles are not concealable, that would seem to indicate that open carry must be allowed, at least for long guns.

I think that anything stated in the opinion that is not relevant to the specific issue being decided is called "dicta" and does not constitute precedent. A future Supreme Court is not bound by the statements in this decision regarding the legitimacy of requiring a permit, for example.

Will it take another ten years to get back the pistol grips on my rifle and the normal capacity magazine for it? I hope not.

[itsahoot]

A case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

Exactly what has that rule prevented?

[itsahoot]

I believe he is talking about the Right to keep and bear arms being confered from British law to American law.

I have no problem believing that Judge Thomas is a patriotic Christian, but If our rights are to be dependent on British law I might remind you that the British have no such right to firearms.