SCOTUS Decision: NYS Rifle & Pistol Association V. Bruen

1 Like

The reaction by the mayor and governor is not good. It further polarizes us. I suspect packing the supreme court will now be a priority.

5 Likes

Why would they dissolve SCOTUS? I guess, sending not-so-peaceful protesters to the Justices’ private homes did not have the desired effect.

Liberals need to …er… what is the inclusive replacement for “man up”?

Well, that’s insurrection. SWAT team at 4am, drag them out in their pajamas, and so on. Equal justice for everyone, right?

5 Likes

Yes, but Winter…er… November is coming. Not enough time, period. Also, you can tell what many Dems think by observing CNN (!) drift to the center.

4 Likes
5 Likes

Neither are the women that got raped on his trains and thrown underneath them!

11 Likes

What is more amusing is that ignorant fool does not recall his ancestory, when they were denied their rights? He is on the Democratic plantation in the big house and his master is telling him he is a good boy. It is astounding that he is this stupid.

9 Likes
7 Likes

If you’re a non law abiding citizen you always had the right to carry a pistol, handgun, tech9, Mac10 or Uzi as long as you were gang affiliated! No special circumstances there! You stole it, ( or purchased it through the black market loophole), you owned it, you carried it. Life is good!
It was fun growing up in Brooklyn, everybody but the good guy had a gun! Still does!
One small step…waiting for the leap to nationwide Constitutional carry!
Do we really have to “peacefully” protest outside their homes to get what is already a God give right, that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?
Asking for a friend.

7 Likes

Such is the will of the good people of NYC. They could have voted for Curtis Sliwa.

4 Likes

One step forward. Maybe.

Recognize that so long as licensing authorities have the discretion to deny a CCW permit if the licensing authority processing applications subjectively believes that the applicant presents a danger to himself or others (as is true in Colorado CRS 18-12-203(2), and I suspect many other states), then “shall issue” is really “may issue” as the permit is only issued at the discretion of local law enforcement.

For example, if NY copied Colorado’s “shall issue” statute and the NY Police Department denied applications based on a subjective belief that permits would present a danger to the public, that would be a de facto “may issue” regime and it’s back to the Supreme Court.

5 Likes

I agree, but look how fast the repubs rolled over on the senate bill. Can’t trust 'em.

10 Likes

People with a wide read of the second amendment are just never happy,

This is a huge win for that POV,

“to justify [a] regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”"

So current regulations based on an “important interest” (red flag laws, assault weapon bans, limits on rounds) are all untenable now. The test is now historical.

“There’s no history of taking away guns from people in crisis as red flags do. Bans on high capacity magazines and assault weapons are also likely to be struck down, and then there’s California’s 10-day waiting period. There’s no history of that. The court says only those regulations consistent with historical regulations are permissible. California has innovative laws that restrict guns in ways that are not historically common.” - UCLA law professor Adam Winkler

3 Likes

The Uniparty is made of strong, forceful, purposeful D side, and weak and unprincipled R side. Prove me wrong :frowning:

5 Likes

image
November we start marching!

3 Likes

Sorry, had to.

image

8 Likes

Yes :heart:

4 Likes

I was watching this one too.

In case you hadn’t heard about it; I believe the story behind it was, that in NY, there was an official proposal asking that even law abiding good citizens have to demonstrate “need” before they are legally allowed to CCW a firearm outside the home. To me, that is way over the top too extreme.

I was concerned of the precedent it could send; And mind you, I am for some firearm laws, but not this one. Just this week, I heard of a series of armed robbers mugging people, but the armed robbers not assaulting in pairs, but in a group of 3-4, all armed, in broad daylight, well before 8:00PM. The location was all too close for me.

Been traveling within the U.S. this year, thus I appreciate this post, helping keep us abreast. Though I’d feel a lot better if all nine Justices agreed in our favor, I’m relieved the count was six (SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States).

Stay strong.

4 Likes
1 Like

Neal Katyal, who describes himself as a “Supreme Court lawyer,” …

I disagree with his logic. “Bear Arms” is written in the Constitution.

Lefty’s somehow think abortion is there!

6 Likes