Supreme Court Strikes Down Blatently Unconstitional Gun Regulation

[woodwork201]

Yep, they sure did. Struck it right down, inscribed now in the books as surely as Brown v. Board or Roe v. Wade.

Leftists, this is what it looks like to get outplayed. There are more Democrats in this country than there are Republicans, and yet there hasn't been a liberal-leaning court since 1969. Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford. Democratic Presidential candidates have won the popular vote four times out of five since 2000, but Republicans have made sure the President count is even because they play the game better. The most recent Republican President crammed through three young Supreme Court Justices in a single term, while Democrats have seated a total of six in the last half a century. This is what it looks like to have your lunch eaten while you squabble about minutiae and insist on the perfect at the expense of the good.

Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling. Statistics that you handwave away as Communist manipulation have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths, but you cling to your Second Amendment absolutism so hard that the result is foreseeable. People in even more states will now be more likely to return fire when they should run away or blaze-of-glory their cubicle farm after they get a bad performance review. Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets, so by all means, enjoy your hardware collection and Dirty Harry fever dreams, because your neighbors or possibly your family and friends are going to pay for it.

So well done, everyone; one more step toward us being an even more fragmented society. Maybe this time we won't get off as lucky as we did the last two times it was this bad.

You're an idiot. There hasn't been a conservative court until 2020. Even then, all of Trump's appointees have gone against what they say are their personal morals and beliefs just to try to make the MSM love them - which will never work unless they completely flip.

Remember Gorsuch saying the Court has no power to change the meanings of words in the law from when the law was created? Then he changed the word sex to include gender? Remember the photos, mysteriously disappeared since then, of him with his transsexual clerk being so happy that he protected homosexuals who choose their gender equally with people's sex which they didn't get to choose?

 

[woodwork201]

That will be the end of the democrat party, as we'll all be talking guns and getting to know each other while the leftist hide under their beds.

I have no idea what you have against Hispanics and Muslims but the only Latinos and Muslims or Whites or Black that I worry about carrying guns weren't waiting patiently for the Supreme Court to OK it.

But I have to say, your casual bigotry is very telling.

And any black, brown, or Muslim people that we might wish didn't have a gun will have one anyway - because those would be the criminals. It's only the left that wants the law-abiding black, brown, and Muslim people stripped of their ability to protect themselves from the black, brown, and Muslim criminals who wish to harm us all.

 

[woodwork201]

Brilliant comment!

Actually, the gun nut right and liberals both are probably exaggerating the scope and effect of this ruling … or at least I hope so. I expect that NY State and any others effected will manage a workaround. Are the registration and issuance of highly vetted “carry licenses” outlawed by this ruling? As I understand it (I could be wrong) the ruling is very broad but it mainly explicitly forbids authorities to ask that there be a specific reason for carrying. Thus it technically puts the burden on the state & police authorities to prove a specific person shouldn’t be issued one. Haven’t read the ruling, or seen sober reviews of its likely impact, and probably few here have either.

This Supreme Court ruling sure will make recruitment of police more difficult and expensive in big crowded cities! It will make their jobs much harder, too. Expect more dead cops, more regular Joes killed in bar fights and “road rage” disputes. If nobody is around, how easy to say: “the other guy drew first” or “I was just standing my ground.”

But there will be some saved lives too, I’m sure, and others (minorities especially) who really need to carry weapons for self defense in tough neighborhoods, will surely be saved from unfair and life-altering legal prosecutions just for carrying. Carrying a concealed gun certainly makes many of us … feel safer, but whether in the end we will actually be safer as a result of this ruling, we will have to wait and see. I have my doubts.

By the way, I have a carry license (not in NY) and my vetting took many months, required two visits to the police department, fingerprinting, payment for “expenses,” and God knows what level of investigation. That is the minimum I expect will be implemented in states effected by this ruling.

I hope and expect they still can keep civilians carrying guns off of airplanes, out of courthouses … and keep guns away from the strong trigger-fingers of those who are about as intelligent as … embryos.

Wow. You'd be a real embarrassment to your namesake if he were alive to read what you post. You should change your name to Benedict Arnold if you want the name of someone from that period.

 

[woodwork201]

Not at all. The real Thomas Paine had “Common Sense” and did not then carry a semi-automatic pistol … or a Stinger Missile or a bazooka either.

When necessary he carried a one-shot musket and defended his adopted country, attached to George Washington’s staff. His real weapon was his pen and his unwavering commitment to his vision of a democratic society, opposing all authoritarian assholes, and to basing society on the protection of the fundamental rights of men … even slaves and foreigners. He was an internationalist who took his pen and understanding of Human Rights to France, where he opposed armed mobs (along with his friend LaFayette) when they threatened the genuine gains of the Revolution there, even getting himself jailed and almost executed by those very mobs.

You have no idea what kind of man Thomas Paine was. He was a working man who hated the lies and superstitions of the clergy and religion, he defended women’s rights and urged money be spent to provide welfare to the old and orphans and public schools (that didn’t exist yet).

You are like the “Winter Soldiers” he criticized, who were quick to pick up a gun but slow to stand fast in difficult times, or perhaps more like the British oligarchy’s conservative supporters and well armed mercenaries.

Paine opposed the very creation of a Senate as an un-democratic feature of our Constitution … which he saw would probably ultimately serve the wealthy and factional interests. He thought it was reminiscent of the “House of Lords” in England. He would not hesitate to change the Constitution if it proved itself to be an obstacle to its basic aim of serving “the General Welfare” of the people.

The 2nd Amendment assumes a world in which a “well regulated militia” exists and is necessary. It does not assume a world where an oligarchy of one tenth of one percent of the rich own as much wealth as 40% or 50% of the citizenry, where they control two sh*t parties, Congress and the Supreme Court, where the people have been rendered so dumb they are ready to kill each other over idiot cultural issues, and destroy our once great country too.

The real Thomas Paine didn't make a fool of himself on the Internet either - yet here you are, Benedict.

 

[theHawk]

women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy

Wow, you’d make a great rape counselor.

 

[woodwork201]

Ah, when rightwing fanatics are confronted by honest criticism or even just reasonable differing views, when they are frustrated and don’t know how to answer intelligently … they almost always resort to insults.

The problem is your revisionist history. You're trying to twist and destroy the truth of one of the often-referenced Founders and, I'm sure, there are others doing the same with other Founders. You hope to convince people that the Founders were really progressives and didn't say what they said, write what they wrote. Then you claim that what they did write and say actually support your leftist progressive agenda.

That is why we'll always prove you wrong so whoever reads your lies will get the truth with supporting links right behind your lie.

 

[woodwork201]

You're right.

Requiring a 'Permit" for a RIGHT, from any size government (local or federal) is a way of saying "Fuck your rights, we'll control your rights anyway"
A governments job should be enforcing RIGHTS and not legislating them from their own town halls and from their court benches.
If We The People had any commitment to our freedom we would not tolerate anything less.

Since the Supreme Court did not specifically state in their opinion as such, NewYork and elsewhere will continue to circumvent the LAW by making the process of enjoying your RIGHTS as difficult and painful as possible. Expect it to take years for NewYork bureaucrats to process your paperwork allowing you to exercise your "Rights", essentially continuing their "May Issue" policy

It will be up to individuals and organizations like GOA to sue them into submission. However, no court in NewYork city jurisdiction will ever rule in favor of your right to carry.

What needs to happen, in my opinion, is a suit for an order that if the process isn't completed within 90 days of application then the application is automatically considered approved and the State must go to court, providing all of the protection of due process, before they can reverse it.

 

[woodwork201]

I really hate to see people make the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember what life is like before 1973. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being was because some states had such egregious abortion laws women were killing themselves or trying to do self-abortions. Now even before Roe versus Wade was put to the wayside States like Texas and others started proclaiming even more egregious abortion laws. And a woman in Texas has already tried to do itself abortion on herself, nearly dying in the process. Then the state was going to charge her, but the public made such an outcry they did nothing. They caused this their stupid law. I'm sorry but you've been down this road before and it doesn't work. Just says you don't want to be told what to do or how to live the state doesn't have the right to do this to women. Don't even have control of your own body you are a second person. We are free Nation we do not have a fascist or totalitarian government, this should never be happening in America again. And as far as guns go, I don't care who has them, every study ever done concludes that the more guns they are the more gun injuries will occur.

Why would we care if a woman dies in the process of murdering her unborn child? I'd be quite happy to help them die. Sell rusty coat hangers.. pull the lever on the gallows, pull the trigger in the firing squad, throw the switch on the electric chair, push the button on the gas chamber, inject the poison in the lethal injection... Of all the methods, hanging would be my favorite but I'd be happy to deliver the death penalty by any of the above.

 

[woodwork201]

Given the current crisis I would think everyone should be on board for gun safety legislation like the House and Senate just passed. It's a start in the right direction for a change.

You would, of course, be wrong. Nothing in the legislation passed would have prevented either shooting.

 

[woodwork201]

They will do as others have suggested and set up a permit desk with one person working it to serve 5 million people.
And that person will be on vacation 364 days of the year or out sick etc etc etc.

They will still find a way to circumvent any law they deem unfit.

The Supreme Court should have added that permits are not required for Constitutional RIGHTS

Unfortunately, most who claim to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, including those on the Supreme Court - Scalia and Alito specifically, actually like gun control just fine, as long as it is the gun control they like. They usually feel the same about other rights and restrictions in the Constitution as well. As long as the Constitution is only violated in ways they like, they like it just fine.

 

[woodwork201]

He’s still afoul of the decision….passing background check, and completing training is all anyone should need.

Huh? How do you get that? How is three references any more unconstitutional than the other two requirements? I agree that the references should not be required but neither should the other two and I'd like to understand why you think those are OK and references are not.

The constitutional thing to do would be to eliminate all three requirements.

 

[woodwork201]

The next case should be one where onerous "shall issue" requirements are challenged.

There should be national Constitutional Carry with no background checks and no training. No infringements or government permission to keep and bear arms.

You're suggesting that we need a law to make the States follow the Constitution? I mean, isn't constitutional carry the law of the land already? If they won't follow the Constitution what makes you think they'll follow a law that says the Constitution rules?

Constitutional carry is the law of the land. The Courts need to enforce it.

 

[woodwork201]

100% agree.

There are laws that can be used against those deemed unfit to carry for solid, mental or past history reasons and the vast majority who are not criminals should not have to sacrifice their rights because of a few thugs.

A rare moment when the SCOTUS got it right (FINALLY)
I just think the SCOTUS should have gone one step further and made it clear that government issued permits are not required for a Constitutional Right.
Clearly bureaucrats will exploit that as they have proven time and time again and will continue to do so.

Besides, the thugs don't give a damn about their laws anyway and will be carrying.

Constitutional carry is already the law of the land. That's why you call it constitutional carry.

The only law we need is to permit suing personally, and the government agency they work for, along with fines and prison time, for any government worker who interferes with a person's rights - any of them but including the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[woodwork201]

Hey liar, where in the CONSTITUTION does it say anything about abortion? THE CONSTITUTION LIAR!

Why in the fuck would you mention the Constitution? You support gun control and that's explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. You don't really have much to offer in discussions of the Constitution because you don't support it except when it pleases you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just too bad it took over a CENTURY to finally get the law repealed.

Next up the 1934 NFA. Abolish the ATF

 

[beagle9]

So clearly you are OK with the ruling on the gun laws in NYC.

Are you equally pleased to see how settled law and a "right" are easily eliminated by a single SCOTUS term with the Abortion decision?

Does it give you pause to think maybe one of your favorite rights can be eliminated? Sure it takes a bit more work, but remember, more than half of Americans are AGAINST THE OVERTURNING OF ROE.

Just a nice thing for you to think about. (Might wanna go buy some more guns)

That half is being pumped up by the media or bad poles taken... It's not half.

 

[Flash]

The problem is your revisionist history. You're trying to twist and destroy the truth of one of the often-referenced Founders and, I'm sure, there are others doing the same with other Founders. You hope to convince people that the Founders were really progressives and didn't say what they said, write what they wrote. Then you claim that what they did write and say actually support your leftist progressive agenda.

That is why we'll always prove you wrong so whoever reads your lies will get the truth with supporting links right behind your lie.

Yea that uneducated Moon Bat does that revisionists history all the time. He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about 99% of the time.

If any of the Founding Fathers were around today and had a list of assholes that they wanted to kick their asses for distorting history he would probably make that list.

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians, including Tomas Paine, not bat shit crazy Libtards. If they were around today they would be supporting Ron Paul not Joe Potatohead.

These Moon Bats don't know any more about History than they know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

 

[j-mac]

Huh? How do you get that? How is three references any more unconstitutional than the other two requirements? I agree that the references should not be required but neither should the other two and I'd like to understand why you think those are OK and references are not.

The constitutional thing to do would be to eliminate all three requirements.

Background checks shouldn’t be a problem if you are a law abiding citizen, and training is never a bad thing.

 

[miketx]

Why in the fuck would you mention the Constitution? You support gun control and that's explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. You don't really have much to offer in discussions of the Constitution because you don't support it except when it pleases you.

You're a two bit lying troll.

 

[miketx]

Thanks for adding me to your signature. I like knowing that with every post you let people know who and what you are.

A blatant lie and it's maker needs to be seen.