U.S. Supreme Court throws out rulings upholding gun restrictions

[Weatherman2020]

It's been big news in Vermont and New York:

Dame: Congrats to our New York neighbors! - Vermont Daily Chronicle

This week the Supreme Court set a major and exciting precedent by striking down over 100 years of New York law when they found that New York’s pattern of restricting gun rights to its innocent and law-abiding citizens was unconstitutional.

vermontdailychronicle.com

That was a separate win for Americans. This one concerns magazines.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

including the Hughes Amendment signed into law by Ronald Reagan,

MACHINE GUNS OR VALHALLA!!!

I told everybody that we would eventually get machine guns or we would die in battle fighting for them and go to Woden's hall.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No doubt people who think their guns make up for small genitals must be very happy

Why is it everything with you is all about penises?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No doubt people who think their guns make up for small genitals must be very happy

Oh NO.

Not the dreaded manhood shaming.

Well in that case...take my guns...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is it everything with you is all about penises?

Shes changing over.

 

[berg80]

Text, history, tradition and the unqualified command(shall not be infringed)are the only acceptable test of any state, or federal firearms law & restrictions!

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

“Will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history?” he ponders, before sketching out his argument that his conservative colleagues have done just that.

Breyer lays out his own list of cases ranging from English precursors to early American laws all the way up through U.S. law in the 20th century. He lists cases that he argues support New York’s licensing scheme, many of which the conservative majority found some reason to reject: “too old,” “too recent,” “did not last long enough,” “applied to too few people,” “enacted for the wrong reasons,” “based on a constitutional rationale that is now impossible to identify,” “not sufficiently analogous,” Breyer reels off.

“At best, the numerous justifications that the Court finds for rejecting historical evidence give judges ample tools to pick their friends out of history’s crowd,” he writes. “At worst, they create a one-way ratchet that will disqualify virtually any ‘representative historical analogue’ and make it nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.”

Breyer Underscores Lunacy Of Cherry-Picking Historical Evidence To Determine Constitutional Rights

Breyer focuses his dissent on the patent ludicrousness of determining constitutional rights solely through historical precedents.

talkingpointsmemo.com

 

[Concerned American]

Why is it everything with you is all about penises?

She has to remind herself that they exist--probably hasn't seen one for a couple decades.

 

[Concerned American]

That was a separate win for Americans. This one concerns magazines.

Must be nice. It just dawned on me, watching the story about Brown-Jackson's oath. The SCOTUS has just ended their session. They are out until the first Monday in October. A full quarter of a year away. SCOTUS justices are compensated $255,300/yr. so she will receive $63,825 as a SIGN-ON bonus? Her salary should not begin until October--but what the hey, it's a government job and we have the money to blow--we'll just print more to cover it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No doubt people who think their guns make up for small genitals must be very happy

I thought your party opposed these weapons.

 

[Death-Ninja]

MACHINE GUNS OR VALHALLA!!!

I told everybody that we would eventually get machine guns or we would die in battle fighting for them and go to Woden's hall.

There is no historical analog for denying Americans those weapons, to do so, the state and federal governments must present indisputable evidence from the ratification(1791)that the founders intended to deny the people certain types of firearms and weapons, and absent that analog, the unqualified command(shall not be infringed)denies any such infringement from being levied, and it carries over to newer technology, or rather there is no provision anywhere within the 2nd for the government to say, well this is just to modern and dangerous for the people, if a soldier can carry it, then "We The People" can possess it, and bear it!

 

[Rigby5]

Obviously the fact Roe Vs Wade was over turned, shows why there must never been any state or federal gun control.
It has to be an individual right because government is always corrupt and tries to infringe.
Only a well armed population can ever be remotely free.

 

[Rigby5]

Bad news for the retarded Marxist revolutionaries.

Revolutionaries are anti government corruption and for individual rights.
Marx was against oppression by the wealthy aristocracy, and for individual rights.
So you seem confused.

 

[Death-Ninja]

Obviously the fact Roe Vs Wade was over turned, shows why there must never been any state or federal gun control.
It has to be an individual right because government is always corrupt and tries to infringe.
Only a well armed population can ever be remotely free.

An armed society is a polite society, an armed society is a formidable check upon tyranny!

 

[woodwork201]

I just wish the Court had overturned the bans rather than sending them back with the new carry rule. Leftist lower and appeals courts will claim that you can carry a 10-round mag so the bans stand. Maryland will claim that allowing citizens to carry does not require that they carry an AR-15.

The Court continues to refuse to do their job and settle the issue of gun control and the 2nd Amendment, once and for all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I just wish the Court had overturned the bans rather than sending them back with the new carry rule. Leftist lower and appeals courts will claim that you can carry a 10-round mag so the bans stand. Maryland will claim that allowing citizens to carry does not require that they carry an AR-15.

The Court continues to refuse to do their job and settle the issue of gun control and the 2nd Amendment, once and for all.

It is a step in the other direction though. If states start using too aggressive regulations, it may once again end up at the SC.

I understand in California they want you to surrender your social media posts in order to obtain a CCW. Okay, so what happens if I lie and say I don't participate on social media? Will they have the right to investigate my claim?

 

[scruffy]

Revolutionaries are anti government corruption and for individual rights.

Sometimes.

Sometimes they're just dumbass fucktards.

Marx was against oppression by the wealthy aristocracy, and for individual rights.

But he was dealing with the German welfare state.

Which has been the source of "most" of the evil in the first half of the 20th century.

 

[Death-Ninja]

I just wish the Court had overturned the bans rather than sending them back with the new carry rule. Leftist lower and appeals courts will claim that you can carry a 10-round mag so the bans stand. Maryland will claim that allowing citizens to carry does not require that they carry an AR-15.

The Court continues to refuse to do their job and settle the issue of gun control and the 2nd Amendment, once and for all.

The cases were vacated and remanded with explicit instruction to apply "strict scrutiny" to, "text, history, tradition and the unqualified command(shall not be infringed)."

This is precisely how the high court rolls, they have vacated the lower courts decision and sent it back to them for further review with those explicit instructions on how to review them, do you understand, the carry portion of the decision while huge, was not even close to the wallop of what followed behind it, they threw out the two tiered review process the various courts had crafted for themselves in wake of Heller, and in crystal clear, definitive language, ordered them to apply only one test for any gun control law(s), or regulation(s), "text, history, tradition, and the unqualified command!"

They are ordered to demonstrate a clear historical analog back to the ratification of the 2nd(1791)in order to uphold/justify any infringing gun control/regulations fashioned by state, federal, or municipal government, I can assure you that no such analogs exist beyond barring felons from possessing firearms, carrying firearms in certain special places such as government offices, courtrooms, ballot booths, and schools, or possessing good moral standing!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Revolutionaries are anti government corruption and for individual rights.
Marx was against oppression by the wealthy aristocracy, and for individual rights.
So you seem confused.

And Marx would never have stripped the people of arms, but Marxism is a complete different animal. A bastard child, used by the oligarchy to control the unwashed masses.

 

[Flash]

All those cases are where the lower courts ruled in favor of gun restrictions.

The cases were sent back to be re-reviewed in light of the NY ruling.

It was the Supremes giving them a chance to get it right themselves or else the Supremes will do it for them.

I love it!

 

[maybelooking]

No doubt people who think their guns make up for small genitals must be very happy

no doubt pussies who dont love the Constitution are losing their minds!!!