New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

[ghuns]

Chalk up another win in the gun owners column.  

Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

[Jim at Gentex]

Yup.
Bout time.

The frikin' 2A can't be any clearer, yet there is nothing but infringement from these liberals. 

[ghuns]

This is...

[gcode]

That pooping sound you hear is liberal heads exploding 

It's a nice win, but expect the ass hats in New York to pass a workaround law by the end of the month
and find a ways to tie up permit applications for years.

[CADCAM396]

thought i heard Cali already had a law of this nature? time to take that down too?

[mkd]

Thomas blew up the bullshit two step approach that circuit courts love to use in order to infringe.
 
SAINT THOMAS FTMFW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mkd]

thought i heard Cali already had a law of this nature? time to take that down too?

Up until a recent total ban on fire arms in public (aka non-concealed carry) having it loaded was strictly prohibited...and just to infringe on other parts of the constitution, peace officers were duty-bound to physically check loaded status.

[Matthew Hajicek]

Now we need them to strike down the permit requirement all together.

[beej]

Alito smacks down Breyer!

On Thursday, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to strike down New York's concealed-carry restrictions, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority that "nothing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms" and that the "definition of 'bear' naturally encompasses public carry."

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer writes, "The dangers posed by firearms can take many forms," and then has a long list of mass shootings that have occurred in recent years, including the attacks in Uvalde and Buffalo.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito strikes back:

    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent's lengthy introductory section. . . . Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? . . . Does the dissent think that laws like New York's prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

[Smit]

Asking for a friend....why is it that "A well regulated militia" part always get passed over but people cling to the "shall not be infringed" part like it's the only thing that matters?

Does everybody think the people who wrote the 2nd amendment just used it to make the amendment longer but didn't really mean it?

I kinda wished the justices would've addressed that but they, too, skipped right to the "shall no be infringed" part.

[neurosis]

A well regulated

When you see the term "well regulated", how do you interpret that? 

It seems to me that the two different spectrums of people interpret that phrase differently.

Just to give away my reason for asking -

CNN has a document out "27 Words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment - 

I see some people interpreting that as meaning to be regulated by government.  Here is the interpretation written in the CNN document.

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."

[Jim at Gentex]

Because 'a well regulated militia' was the common practice for the common defense at the time, and now it isn't.  But the PRINCIPLE of the armed citizen is still the same.  They didn't ignore it. It's just not relevant.

Is that all ya got? 

[marshal]

Asking for a friend....why is it that "A well regulated militia" part always get passed over but people cling to the "shall not be infringed" part like it's the only thing that matters?

Does everybody think the people who wrote the 2nd amendment just used it to make the amendment longer but didn't really mean it?

I kinda wished the justices would've addressed that but they, too, skipped right to the "shall no be infringed" part.

because the amendment has nothing to do with maintaining a militia, and everything to do with the rights of the people.  In more modern language it would say something along the lines of "While we know maintaining a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the country, but that doesn't take away the rights of the people to bear arms". 

I saw a comment on reddit this morning that put it in different terms:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A full and healthy breakfast, being necessary to the beginning of a productive day, the right of the people to keep and eat bacon shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to bacon, the people or breakfast? The 2nd Amendment is not about militias, it's about the people as the Supreme Court has reaffirmed in 2008 and today."

[JParis]

Asking for a friend....why is it that "A well regulated militia" part always get passed over but people cling to the "shall not be infringed" part like it's the only thing that matters?

Because the "militia" is us.....

Why do libs continually ignore THAT part

[gcode]

Exploding heads