Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 64

Thread: SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law

  1. #1

    SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law

    Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Proper Cause Requirement for Concealed Carry

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ncealed-carry/

    AWR HAWKINS 23 Jun 2022

    The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 on June 23 that New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance is unconstitutional.

    New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen centered on denials for permits under New York’s concealed carry permitting law. The NYSRPA filed suit claiming that one of its members was eligible for a permit but was denied because of New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants prove why they need to carry a gun.

    The case ultimately dealt with the scope of the Second Amendment — whether the right to keep and bear arms applies only in the home or outside the home as well.

    When SCOTUS granted cert in the case the NYSRPA responded:

    This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.

    NRA-ILA director Jason Ouimet also commented on the suit after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it:

    Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm. This is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment. The NRA is grateful that the Supreme Court is tackling this critical issue. We are proud to be a part of this case, and we look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended.

    The immediate impact of the June 23 ruling is that New York’s proper cause requirement is struck down. What is yet to be seen is how this decision will impact other states–like California and New Jersey, both of which have concealed carry issuance guidelines similar to New York’s proper cause requirement–and whether the success of NYSRPA .v Bruen leads to suits against those states as well.

    The case is NYSRPA v. Bruen, No. 20-843, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-23-2022 at 10:50 AM.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Glad that 6 out of 9 are not morons.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Glad that 6 out of 9 are not morons.
    Kavanaugh could be better, even on this specific issue.. but it definitely gives the "Hillary and Trump are the same" people something to think about.

    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  5. #4
    Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would make NYC a slighty better place to live with this ruling?
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  6. #5
    Great news

    & still some bitching lol

  7. #6
    I just wish we can all live together happily, until that time, I can surely see that some people in some places would feel the need to be protected. Where I live nothing ever really happens so I really see no need for carrying a weapon. And it's not allowed here either... Doesn't stop the criminals from having them, but they tend to shoot each other for the most part.

    I'm happy that the SC looks at the 2nd for what it says, not what they consider it should be today. That's encouraging. Why does that matter to me ? Well, the outlook on European stability isn't that great. At least, that's my perception.
    "I am a bird"

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s Proper Cause Requirement for Concealed Carry

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ncealed-carry/

    AWR HAWKINS 23 Jun 2022

    The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 on June 23 that New York’s proper cause requirement for concealed carry permit issuance is unconstitutional.

    New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen centered on denials for permits under New York’s concealed carry permitting law. The NYSRPA filed suit claiming that one of its members was eligible for a permit but was denied because of New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants prove why they need to carry a gun.

    The case ultimately dealt with the scope of the Second Amendment — whether the right to keep and bear arms applies only in the home or outside the home as well.

    When SCOTUS granted cert in the case the NYSRPA responded:

    This case challenges New York’s requirement that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a firearm. New York regularly uses this requirement to deny applicants the right to carry a firearm outside of their home. The NRA believes that law-abiding citizens should not be required to prove they are in peril to receive the government’s permission to exercise this constitutionally protected right.

    NRA-ILA director Jason Ouimet also commented on the suit after the Supreme Court agreed to hear it:

    Under current New York law, a law-abiding resident becomes a felon the moment he or she steps outside their home with their firearm. This is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment. The NRA is grateful that the Supreme Court is tackling this critical issue. We are proud to be a part of this case, and we look forward to a future in which law-abiding Americans everywhere have the fundamental right to self-defense the way the Constitution intended.

    The immediate impact of the June 23 ruling is that New York’s proper cause requirement is struck down. What is yet to be seen is how this decision will impact other states–like California and New Jersey, both of which have concealed carry issuance guidelines similar to New York’s proper cause requirement–and whether the success of NYSRPA .v Bruen leads to suits against those states as well.

    The case is NYSRPA v. Bruen, No. 20-843, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
    What else could "keep and bear" arms mean other than the right to both "keep" them in the home and "bear" them outside the home?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #8
    Last edited by Anti Globalist; 06-23-2022 at 01:33 PM.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

    Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

    I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would make NYC a slighty better place to live with this ruling?
    It's not just NYC.. it's any state or county that has "may issue" concealed carry permits.

    A lot of places you have to fill out paperwork to get a concealed carry, then you have to tell them why you need it. You can say "self defense" and they can just tell you to f-off. It's completely arbitrary.

    Now they will have to issue permits, also known as "shall issue". The best states don't require the permit.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

    Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

    I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.
    The Second Amendment ALWAYS applied to the states!

    https://everything.explained.today/Nunn_v._Georgia/

    Nunn v. Georgia explained
    Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

    Background
    In 1837, Georgia passed a law banning the sale and carry of certain types of weapons included Bowie and other types of knives, and pistols. Hawkins H. Nunn was charged and convicted for carrying a pistol in violation of the law.[2] [3] He appealed the ruling, claiming the state law was a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He did not make a claim under the Georgia constitution because Georgia, unlike many other states, did not have a similar protection of the right to bear arms within its constitution.[4] [5]

    Ruling
    The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons. To do so would be a violation of the Second Amendment right to carry weapons for self-defense. As there was no proof that Nunn had been carrying his pistol concealed, the conviction was overturned.

    Legal analysis
    The court relied on guidance from other state decisions and general theories of rights to explain its decision.

    Other state courts
    The Nunn court referenced Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) and State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840). In Bliss, the defendant was charged with carrying a weapon concealed, in violation of a Kentucky statute. The Bliss court invalidated the law as a diminution of the Kentucky constitution which provided, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned." The court reasoned that the right as defined has no limits and "in fact consists of nothing else but the liberty." Any restriction on the right, including the prohibition of concealed carry was a violation of the right.[6]

    In contrast the court in Reid upheld a similar ban on concealed carry. The Alabama constitution read, "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State." The Reid court held that the law "to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," did not violate the Alabama constitution. While the legislature could not prevent the carrying of arms, it did retain the right "to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne." Because the restriction on concealed carry was not a prohibition on the right, it was within the ambit of the legislature to restrict concealed carry.[7]

    Fundamental rights
    The Nunn court recognized that Reid and Bliss were applying clauses in state constitutions. But, their decisions were relevant to Georgia because the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms was not a newly given right, but was a recitation of an already existent right.

    The court held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the rights of Georgia citizens because free people have the right to self-defense. The fact that Georgia did not have a constitutional amendment did not empower the Georgia legislature to infringe on the right. The right is fundamental, and no free society could exist where the right was prohibited.[8]

    The court also held that the whole people, not just militia were afforded the right to keep and bear arms. And the type of arms was not restricted only to those borne by the militia but arms of every type and description.

    The court's concept of rights meant that other portions of the Bill of Rights would also apply to the States. For example, the court explained that the right to peaceably assemble, protected under the First Amendment, was applicable to both the national and state governments. The court also cited to the New York case of People vs. Goodwin, 18 John. Rep. 200 (N.Y.Sup. 1820) which applied Fifth Amendment double jeopardy prohibitions to New York state court operations. The court explained how to determine which constitutional provisions apply to the state and which applied only the federal government; the relevant question is whether the concepts in the constitution were confined only to the national government or if they could be extended to the states as well. Citing Goodwin:

    Modern significance

    The Nunn court's decision has continuing relevance to the ongoing debate over gun rights. The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause. ... "[9] The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments


    Note the difference between the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    First Amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Contrast with the Second Amendment.

    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.

    Note that the first amendment says Congress shall pass no law. The prohibition of infringement of the Second amendment was NOT limited to Congress. So...what happened? The freeing of the slaves. After the U.S. Civil War there was the Cruikshank case were the KKK and a racist Democratic party militia disarmed black freeman and then lynched them. A case was brought against the killers in part for violating the freeman's constitutional rights under the first and second amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time ever, interpreted the 2nd amendment as only applying to Congress even though the word "Congress" is NOWHERE to be found in the 2nd amendment.

    https://teachingamericanhistory.org/...-v-cruikshank/

    The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

    Gun control is inherently and perpetually racist and unconstitutional whether it's done at the federal level or the state level. As for abortion, find me any language about abortion in the U.S. constitution and get back with me.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 06-23-2022 at 04:52 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  14. #12
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  15. #13
    Time for my Smith & Wesson Stock to rise

    SWBI symbol

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    What else could "keep and bear" arms mean other than the right to both "keep" them in the home and "bear" them outside the home?
    Constitutional "scholars" will be happy to tell you that those words don't mean what they clearly mean.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  17. #15

    Libertarian Party Mises Caucus
    "The libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party."

    Platform · Our Actions

    Mises PAC
    (Libertarian Party membership not required)

    #TakeHumanAction · Donate · Merchandise


    HOME · Facebook · Twitter · YouTube

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Today: States are not free to enact such gun control laws. They violate the 14th Amendment.

    Tomorrow(?): States are free to enact such abortion laws. They do not violate the 14th Amendment.

    I just wish we had actual federalism. If New Yorkers want these laws, more power to them.
    Murdering babies is not found in the Bill of Rights, nor should it be there.
    Guns and self defense are.
    If only we could give the babies guns with which to defend themselves.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Lots of other gun laws are now on the chopping block:

    In addition, the Court threw out the “intermediate scrutiny” approach that appellate courts turned to. Instead, the Court ruled that the application of the Second Amendment should be the history, text, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.

    “This a massive victory for the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners everywhere,” declared Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “The Second Amendment is an individual right, and no law-abiding gun owner should be denied the right to carry a firearm for personal protection while in public – and thankfully the Court has now affirmed it.”

    New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is the first major Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has taken up in over a decade. Justice Clarence Thomas issued the following opinion:

    The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

    More at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/the-na...ight-to-carry/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

    If you're gonna have feds at all, then the states should be the bosses of the feds, not the other way around.

    But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the spectacle of progressives' heads exploding ...

    https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/s...92645635915776


    Here's a sampling of others (hidden to save space - see the link above for more):
     

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.
    If the BoR doesn't apply to the states then the rights are not GOD given and liberty doesn't exist.
    The states agreed to the BoR as part of the union and they can secede if they don't like it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If the BoR doesn't apply to the states then the rights are not GOD given and liberty doesn't exist.
    TIL that god-given rights and liberty didn't come into existence until some politicians wrote the BoR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The states agreed to the BoR as part of the union and they can secede if they don't like it.
    Or the feds can just go kick rocks, like I said, Same difference.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    TIL that god-given rights and liberty didn't come into existence until some politicians wrote the BoR.



    Or the feds can just go kick rocks, like I said, Same difference.
    The BoR RECOGNIZES rights from GOD.
    To allow the states to ignore them is to deny they are GOD given.

    You can go kick rocks.
    You are siding with tyrants at the state level to satisfy some bizarre dogma about states rights that is expressly UNconstitutional since the Constitution states it is the supreme law of the land and binding on the states.

    The states must obey the BoR or leave the union and if they don't they must be made to choose one or the other.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The BoR RECOGNIZES rights from GOD.
    That is not what you said. You said "the rights are not GOD given" if "the BoR doesn't apply to the states".

    Thus, according to your previous statement, those rights cannot have been "GOD given" prior to the existence of the BoR and its application to the states.

    Because that is how "if A then B" works - as in "if that is not what you actually meant, then that's your problem, not mine". (See?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    To allow the states to ignore them is to deny they are GOD given.
    No it isn't. It is to deny that the feds have any business arrogating to themselves the authority to dictate to the states on behalf of "GOD" or anyone else (the former of whom I am certain is quite capable of ensuring HIS justice be done - without needing any assistance from the feds, thank you very much) concerning whatever it is the feds do or don't happen to consider to be "rights" this month.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You are siding with tyrants at the state level [...]
    No I am not. I oppose tyranny at both the state and federal levels - but I do so without making excuses or apologies for the latter just because it happens to countervail against the former once every blue moon.

    And if there are not enough people in New York who give enough of a $#@! to do something about their tyrants, then to hell with New York.



    (One might even call that "GOD's justice" ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    [...] to satisfy some bizarre dogma about states rights that is expressly UNconstitutional since the Constitution states it is the supreme law of the land and binding on the states.
    To hell with the Constitution. SCOTUS and the BoR are not coming to save you.

    For each and every ruling like this one, myriad other violations of rights are routinely endorsed and perpetrated by the very same federal government, all under the rubric of the Constitution. "One step forward, a dozen steps back, one step forward, a dozen steps back, ..." is not a viable strategy for securing liberty - and if squirting Constitutional eyewash worked, then the federal government would not have become the hideously bloated behemoth that it is. (I mean, talk about "bizarre dogma" ...)

    And I didn't say anything at all about "states' rights" ("dogma[tically]" or otherwise), because states don't have rights - only individual people do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The states must obey the BoR or leave the union and if they don't they must be made to choose one or the other.
    And the states & feds that have no problem violating the BoR can say exactly the same thing about the others. Again, same difference - separation of either side from the other reduces to the same thing (namely, one side telling the feds and the other side to go kick rocks, or vice versa). I don't particularly care which side takes its marbles and goes home - it would suffice that it happens. (In fact, I'd laugh my ass of if Texas, et al. were to end up seceding because they thought the feds were too tyrannical, and New York, et al. were to end up seceding because they thought the feds weren't tyrannical enough.)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 06-24-2022 at 04:11 AM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The Second Amendment ALWAYS applied to the states!

    https://everything.explained.today/Nunn_v._Georgia/
    You do realize that Nunn v. Georgia was not a SCOTUS case, right?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Murdering babies is not found in the Bill of Rights, nor should it be there.
    Guns and self defense are.
    If only we could give the babies guns with which to defend themselves.
    Perhaps according to the current makeup of SCOTUS. What happens when liberals hold the majority and reverse these rulings?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    You do realize that Nunn v. Georgia was not a SCOTUS case, right?
    You do realize that the SCOTUS later referenced Nunn v Georgia in the Hiller Case right? You SHOULD recognizes that because I freaking said it. Reading is fundamental. There is something in law called binding authority and something called persuasive authority. Nunn v Georgia is persuasive authority because the Georgia Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way people who were alive at the time it was written interpreted it. And you do realize that there is nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment to limit it to the federal government the way the word "Congress" limits the 1st Amendment right? Again, reading is fundamental. You should also realize that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that is is the supreme law of the land. Article VI clause 2.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Again, reading is fundamental. So...go ahead and make your argument why the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong to interpret the 2nd Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, applied to the state even without the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. I'll wait.





    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Perhaps according to the current makeup of SCOTUS. What happens when liberals hold the majority and reverse these rulings?
    Just because a liberal court might later make an idiotic ruling doesn't mean you have to buy into that idiotic ruling. A plain reading of the 2nd Amendment, and pre civil right persuasive court precedent, and common sense shows that it applies to the states and it has ALWAYS applied to the states. Again, the 1st Amendment was limited by the word "Congress." The word "Congress" is nowhere in the 1st Amendment. And the word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution at all.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

    If you're gonna have feds at all, then the states should be the bosses of the feds, not the other way around.

    But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the spectacle of progressives' heads exploding ...
    *SIGH* The 2nd Amendment applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment and the so called "incorporation doctrine." I explained that here:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7116466

    And here:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7116402
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Note the difference between the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

    First Amendment
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Contrast with the Second Amendment.

    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.

    Note that the first amendment says Congress shall pass no law. The prohibition of infringement of the Second amendment was NOT limited to Congress.
    Well, I'll be dipped.

    In all these years I never noticed that subtle but significant difference.

    Essentially what we have here is a right considered so important that it "incorporated" itself, long before the concept of incorporation was adjudicated.

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 06-24-2022 at 06:35 AM.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Maj Toure's Black Guns Matter gets a shout-out in Alito's concurring opinion:

    https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/st...15878100041731
    //

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.
    *SIGH* The 2nd Amendment applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment and the so called "incorporation doctrine." I explained that here:
    I don't care. (By all means, file it under the "every other form of federal supremacy" option I offered, if that suits you better.)

    And while we're at it, the 2nd Amendment (whether "incorporated" or not) can go kick rocks, too.

    As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms should not ever be regarded as contingent upon what the Constitution does or does not say (or, more precisely, whatever the feds choose to say at any given moment about what the Constitution does or does not say, since that is really what it comes down to in actual practice). That's exactly what the anti-federalists tried to warn people about. And now, here we are, thirsting over a pleasing result[1] that should never have been left up to the feds to decree for all the states in the first place. ("All eggs, meet basket. Basket, all eggs ... What's that? You're already acquainted? You've known each other since 1788? Well, I'll be damned ...")



    [1] And it is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. #DraftJaniceRogersBrown for #SCOTUS
    By groverblue in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2016, 06:06 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-16-2014, 10:54 PM
  3. SCOTUS strikes down DOMA
    By Carlybee in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 06-30-2013, 03:28 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 06:57 PM
  5. The Empire Strikes? Bring it on already with the public sector strikes!
    By Live_Free_Or_Die in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •