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

[jc456]

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

Not sure what you think you're saying. It's your house, not public atmosphere. Derp dude.

 

[jc456]

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.

looks like you were born in the wrong time.

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

While they were territories or states? Big difference. I'll wait.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I am sure everyone followed the law except for those didn't follow the law.

 

[Open Bolt]

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 would have been more comfortable with strict scrutiny. I don't have a clear idea what sort of laws the above standard will allow and disallow.

I hope you're right though about laws against pistol grips/flash suppressors and magazine size restrictions being struck down.

Hopefully also New Jersey's ban on hollowpoints, and all the various laws against .50 caliber guns.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.

It wouldn't have been an issue if New York wasn't trying to call the entire city a "sensitive place".
Some people need to have things spelled out for them instead of just pretending a city or state is the same thing as a courthouse.

.​

 

[2aguy]

And Thomas opens the door to fighting the use of mandatory Insurance to own or carry a gun....

 

[task0778]

New York's law made it a crime to possess a gun without a license in one's own home.

I thought NY made it a crime to carry a gun OUTSIDE the home without a permit, not inside. That law is still unchanged and is in effect. There was never a requirement to have a permit inside, but you had to show proper cause to get a permit to carry outside in public. The SC struck that down, it cannot be up to the state gov't to decide whether or not you have proper cause.

 

[Auld Phart]

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......

NY law Cancelled,

 

[1srelluc]

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

Good but too narrow of a ruling.

 

[jc456]

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.

How come they still had gun fights?

Then, why did they stop it?

 

[sealybobo]

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

So much for states rights.

 

[jc456]

So much for states rights.

Defined by federal doctrines

 

[1srelluc]

So much for states rights.

Nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public "with respect to the right to keep and bear arms." - Clarence Thomas

 

[Rogue AI]

So much for states rights.

The states don't have the right to deprive citizens the protections of the Constitution.

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing in the Second Amendment distinguishes between home and public "with respect to the right to keep and bear arms." - Clarence Thomas

I think this is great. I'm going to start carrying my gun everywhere I go. And fuck me taking a class before I can do it. The 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything about having to take a class before you can carry a concealed gun right?

 

[BlackSand]

So much for states rights.

.

So true ... States and cities don't have the Right to pretend they are the same thing as a courthouse.
It's a shame someone had to tell them that.

.​

 

[1srelluc]

I think this is great. I'm going to start carrying my gun everywhere I go. And fuck me taking a class before I can do it. The 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything about having to take a class before you can carry a concealed gun right?

Baby steps my man, baby steps.....I think we will see much broader rulings in the future.

 

[task0778]

I think this is great. I'm going to start carrying my gun everywhere I go. And fuck me taking a class before I can do it. The 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything about having to take a class before you can carry a concealed gun right?

It doesn't say anything about Gun Free Zones either. A state can still require a permit to carry gun in public, but they cannot discriminate based on their idea of what 'proper cause' is. And they can designate certain places where a concealed gun is illegal. Right now those limitations are legal and constitutional until the SC says they are not. Let's not bitch about future court decisions before they exist.

 

[Rogue AI]

Baby steps my man, baby steps.....I think we will see much broader rulings in the future.

This ruling is pretty broad. Many liberal hellholes have similar standards. If liberals pretend they don't understand the limitations, this Court will remove all doubt quickly.