Carrying guns in public is protected by the 2nd Amendment....the Supreme Court ruling in New York permit case...

[2aguy]

Here is the ruling that ends the argument from anti-gun fanatics that you can't carry a gun in public....

Thankfully, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion...he has shown that he is sick and tired of the lower courts lying about Heller and ignoring Heller and the other Rulings by the Supreme court...

The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

(c) 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.”

McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self- defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public. Pp. 62–63.

I think they call it the "drops the mic," moment......

 

[Stormy Daniels]

SCOTUS overturns New York's conceal carry law, because it deprives people with "ordinary" self defense needs from equal access to enjoying their 2nd amendment rights, thereby violating the 14th amendment.

New York's law made it a crime to possess a gun without a license in one's own home. That is clearly unconstitutional, but this case likely won't have as much precedent value as some might hope (or fear).

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog

 

[Failzero]

If NJ starts issuing and honors other States Permits I may be able to carry there when visiting my Daughter & Grandsons

 

[shockedcanadian]

Isn't it odd that all of these S.C cases, decisions and issues (guns, abortion) are making the news so loudly just moths before the mid-term?

CNN ad their "America Last" donors will now loudly push this as a way to motivate the alt-left to go out ad vote, "look, they want to kill you!"

 

[Abatis]

This is what I wanted . . .It means all the "assault weapon" bans and "large capacity" magazine bans will all be challenged in short order and struck down . . .

"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. . . .​

​

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.""​

 

[HandleTheTruth]

SCOTUS overturns New York's conceal carry law, because it deprives people with "ordinary" self defense needs from equal access to enjoying their 2nd amendment rights, thereby violating the 14th amendment.

New York's law made it a crime to possess a gun without a license in one's own home. That is clearly unconstitutional, but this case likely won't have as much precedent value as some might hope (or fear).

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog

Where does it say in your own home.

All I've seen is in public.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

You see this is misleading it was a conceal carry law.

Not a home defense law. So it's not in ones home it's carrying in public.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

I agree with this ruling

But I don't agree with the op saying that it denied somebody from defending their own home. This is a conceal carry law in public.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Where does it say in your own home.

All I've seen is in public.

That's according to the text of the court's opinion.

 

[2aguy]

and here...

We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.

We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its use- fulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.

 

[2aguy]

This is what I wanted . . .It means all the "assault weapon" bans and "large capacity" magazine bans will all be challenged in short order and struck down . . .

"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. . . .​

​

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.""​

I am soooo glad that Thomas wrote this opinion...........

 

[2aguy]

And this is Thomas flipping off the lower courts...

If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scru- tiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures.

 

[whitehall]

The decision only levels the field for handgun permits in NY and most other states have far more liberal gun laws but the governor is hysterical about the notion of equal rights. No surprise here.

 

[2aguy]

And Thomas.......taking on the left when they try to declare New York state as a "sensitive place...."


But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the cat- egory of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ ar- gument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to pub- licly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra.

Put simply, there is no his- torical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Po- lice Department.

Thank you Justice Thomas....for dealing with the mile the democrats would take with the "sensitive places," inch.....

To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.
----
The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is excellent news!

 

[HandleTheTruth]

That's according to the text of the court's opinion.

Yeah but the law it overturned says nothing about in the home. It say conceal carry in public.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Here's something that stands out as peculiar.

Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstand-ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields rela-tively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative as-semblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such pro-hibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244– 247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Ami-cus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amend-ment. And courts can use analogies to those historical reg-ulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern reg-ulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.

It seems that, here, the court is saying that is assumes that it is settled that one type of restriction is constitutional, simply because three have been no prior challenges to such a regulation's constitutionality. This sounds like a manufactured post-hoc rationalization to preserve a restriction.

To me, this raises serious concerns about what the court may hold as being constitutional, and how it will go about making that determination. I don't believe for a moment that the court will apply this kind of approach in other scenarios. In fact, based on the draft abortion ruling, the exact opposite approach is applied.

 

[jc456]

SCOTUS overturns New York's conceal carry law, because it deprives people with "ordinary" self defense needs from equal access to enjoying their 2nd amendment rights, thereby violating the 14th amendment.

New York's law made it a crime to possess a gun without a license in one's own home. That is clearly unconstitutional, but this case likely won't have as much precedent value as some might hope (or fear).

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog

McDonald vs City of Chicago.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

The bill says conceal carry in public not in the home. So this will probably be challenged in the courts again.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

Here's something that stands out as peculiar.

Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstand-ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” 554 U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields rela-tively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative as-semblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such pro-hibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244– 247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Ami-cus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amend-ment. And courts can use analogies to those historical reg-ulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern reg-ulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.

It seems that, here, the court is saying that is assumes that it is settled that one type of restriction is constitutional, simply because three have been no prior challenges to such a regulation's constitutionality. This sounds like a manufactured post-hoc rationalization to preserve a restriction.

To me, this raises serious concerns about what the court may hold as being constitutional, and how it will go about making that determination. I don't believe for a moment that the court will apply this kind of approach in other scenarios. In fact, based on the draft abortion ruling, the exact opposite approach is applied.

Hey in the d west whole towns you had to check your guns at the sheriff's office and couldn't carry them in town at all.