Posted on 06/23/2022 9:14:51 AM PDT by JimBianchi11
“They are all interchangeable components manufactured to specification.”
***************
LOL. Good one.
The RNC is a RINO factory. Its sole purpose is to turn newly elected reps into RINOs and keep the RINO machine in DC at full operating capacity.
Agree with you on Oz.
I thought the Court had to deal with issues presented to it, not determine sweeping law itself. And I don’t think they are ‘in control’ of the Constitution, when the Constitution can be changed by Congress and/or the People.
Someone would have to bring a case that encompasses gun laws in general in some way, for the Court to decide that ‘all gun laws are infringements and cannot stand’.
“Supreme Court expands gun rights”
It is impossible for government to “expand” rights.
Government can only restrict rights, or reduce restrictions previously imposed.
I would not be real comfortable being a justice this summer. Why should the regime risk losing the ability to fill the next two or three vacancies? McConnell couldn’t louse up a Scalia scenario this time.
The idiot governor of NY said, “ It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence”, as if a “moment of national reckoning” plays some role in the exercise of one’s Constitutional rights.
I just got my pistol permit and was going to get my conceal carry next… does this ruling negate these? Or state by state basis?
“I’m hoping it’s not just greasing the skids for the Case when the NEW “Red Flag” B.S. Law”
There is no new red flag law. I’m not sure why Freepers are getting this so wrong. Where are you getting your news? The Senate bill just has grants in it for states, nothing else related to red flag laws. No national red flag law, no requirement for states to have a red flag law. It is nothing worth freaking out about. With this ruling, it is huge net win for gun rights.
Unfortunately I think this decision let’s the government require a permit for any exercise of the Second Amendment as long as no subjective criteria are imposed. Except for striking down may-issue laws I think it enables plenty of regulations that most here would call “infringements”.
The right to request expensive temporary permission to defend yourself shall not be infringed.
You are welcome.
Yep. SCOTUS “recognized” this right and allowing it to be enforced. They don’t create rights and neither does Congress. God given rights pre-exist.
Everyone should have a map of all of the local bridges for any libs they may encounter.
Maybe SCOTUS issued Bruen before Dobbs as a warning re: the psychotic Left taking matters into their own hands.
Your state laws still apply regarding your process to be able to exercise your Right to carry a firearm.
SCOTUS has said that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right and is subject to regulation. SCOTUS has never said that states must allow concealed carry without a license. It is up to each state how to administer the manner that people get to exercise the Right to bear arms.
What this ruling said is that states can’t prohibit you carrying your weapon for no reason. They have to have a very good reason to say “no”, otherwise they must say “yes”, but in saying yes, they can require you to have a permit or a license or training. SCOTUS has never said those things infringe on your Right to carry your weapon, even is some of us think they do. The SCOTUS does not.
“More B.S. Rulings!”
You’re stuck in “the way things ought to be” land.
It’s a dire, unpleasant existence there.
I encourage you to join the rest of us in “the way things are” land. That way you can help effect change.
Probably. Some rely on largess, the rest of us relied on an agreement with those people. Poor planning all around.
“””The Senate bill just has grants in it for states, nothing else related to red flag laws. No national red flag law, no requirement for states to have a red flag law. It is nothing worth freaking out about. With this ruling, it is huge net win for gun rights.”””
The States are first at the feeding trough when it comes to the Feds handing out free money.
While most of the Red States will have a tough time passing red flag laws, the Blue States will be more than happy to pass red flag laws if that means they get some free money from the Feds.
I am not warm and fuzzy that this SCOTUS ruling will stop some of the States passing red flag laws.
If red flag laws get passed in a State, then that law will end up at SCOTUS at some future date.
This is HUGE! This is the case I’ve been waiting for. NY trampled on American’s constitutional rights for over 100 years and was allowed to get away with it. The 2nd amendment includes the right to both keep and bear. They were not letting anybody bear. Now they will have to start.
Blue states already have red flag laws, so this is just the status quo. In fact, it may help a bit because to get the money, you have to guarantee due process for the red flag laws. So this should weaken the worst of the blue state laws.
Puzzling to me why anyone would bother to post a newsman’s synopsis when the SCOTUS (which is the PROPER acronym) decision was already online when they made the announcement.
The meatiest bit:
2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN
Syllabus
Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22.
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one 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 a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
(2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.
(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582.
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component ’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical 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 Police Department. Pp. 17–22.
(b) Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller more explicit, the Court applies that standard to New York’s proper cause requirement. Pp. 23–62.
The complete document is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.