Supreme Court to take up major Second
Amendment concealed handgun case
NBC News,
by
Pete Williams
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
4/26/2021 10:24:01 AM
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will consider how much protection the Second Amendment provides for carrying a gun outside the home. The case will mark the first time in more than a decade that the court agreed to take up a central issue of the gun rights debate, something it has consistently ducked since issuing a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self defense.
The court agreed to hear a challenge to a New York state law that
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Califedup 4/26/2021 10:29:18 AM (No. 767437)
The Supreme Roberts Court. We are gonna get screwed on our rights again.
26 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 4/26/2021 10:47:17 AM (No. 767450)
Let them try...
9 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
DVC 4/26/2021 10:53:35 AM (No. 767462)
Roberts is now a full lefty, so this may not go well.
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Mizz Fixxit 4/26/2021 11:06:58 AM (No. 767482)
The court has recently rejected many Second Amendment cases because, according to speculation —- neither the liberals, nor the conservative justices trust Roberts on the Second Amendment. In this case I am confident of at least a 5-4 ruling against the New York laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights.
14 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Son of Grady 4/26/2021 11:15:22 AM (No. 767491)
Since Roberts is being blackmailed by Obama
I'm pretty worried how this will end.
21 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Toodles3956 4/26/2021 11:39:52 AM (No. 767519)
Not to hard to figure out the outcome of this!
4 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Toby Ten Bears 4/26/2021 11:47:42 AM (No. 767530)
Whoever has the most money gets the desired outcome... SCOTUS is dirty and corrupted.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 4/26/2021 11:56:48 AM (No. 767543)
I think #4 is likely correct in assessing this, but I am still nervous.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
lakerman1 4/26/2021 12:29:10 PM (No. 767571)
This will be a close one, and I don't know which way the Court will rule.
A law with ambiguous language, giving government the power to interpret the language, is bad.
Upstate New York has historically treated gun owners relatively well. but the NYS law does not extend to NYC, which has its own laws on firearms, and NYC has never been good to gun owners.
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
NYbob 4/26/2021 12:42:29 PM (No. 767578)
Next up, it will be illegal to fight back when an oppressed or woke person assaults you. You are allowed to take a beating or stabbing, but you can not defend yourself. That will be the law in New America. Nothing that might possibly be an offensive weapon can be allowed, you know to 'protect' the innocents. A woke ruling here will automatically disarm criminals, so it's a good thing if potential victims are disarmed as well. If your attacker is crazy, stronger or has a club or friends, well that's unfortunate for you, but we have to consider exactly what the words ' keep and bear Arms ' mean. For the communists on the Court that means you can wear a tank top T-shirt, but only during Summer.
5 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 4/26/2021 12:45:58 PM (No. 767582)
This could be a good thing. I smell a 5-4 in our favor.
Cuomo will have a fit.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
BarryNo 4/26/2021 12:50:51 PM (No. 767587)
I kind of agree with poster #1. The Roberts court doesn't follow the Constitution, they "manage" it. They will be sure to find some nuance, or penumbra that suggests all ammo and guns be stored in a community bunker to be withdrawn only after several days of background checks into criminal and mental histories of the requestor...
... who is dead because they couldn't defend themselves from a threat. But, that's okay. Government protecting... somebody...
3 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 4/26/2021 1:07:50 PM (No. 767601)
We're screwed.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Namma 4/26/2021 1:11:41 PM (No. 767605)
If #5 is correct, and I believe he is, then its time that Roberts becomes a man and fess up. Stop allowing someone to control you. A nation is at stake because of your very own actions. stop being blackmailed
There is enough crap on hussien that could be used against him. A whole nation is affected by decisions that are controlled by someone else. Grow a pair!
7 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Foont 4/26/2021 2:32:42 PM (No. 767717)
We have become so conditioned to accept this crap that now we wait with baited breath for our rulers to determine whether or not we will be allowed to exercise our God-given rights. These lawyers should not be ruling on any of this. There should be no case to rule upon. There should be no "law" limiting or infringing or curtailing any of the rights God has given us. We put up with this crap for the sake of "peace" and "order" and we see right before our eyes that we end up with neither.
7 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
DVC 4/26/2021 3:00:13 PM (No. 767751)
Several circuits of federal judges have found that a state MUST have a 'shall issue' or objective standards concealed carry permit system.
Example: Illinois. They theoretically had CCW licensing, a "may issue" which meant, in practice, NEVER issue except PERHAPS to a jeweler who carries valuables and is friends with the mayor or police chief, everyone else, NYET! So, the judge gave the legislature of Illinois 90 days to come up with a good, fair, "shall issue" system, or he would just cancel all their laws against carrying firearms concealed and let anyone carry (as we have now in 20 states). The Illinois legislature passed a pretty decent new law, and it has been utilized by many people to get CCW licenses, making them more able to defend themselves.
So....we may get a similar ruling from the Supremes....I hope. The 2nd Amendment is very, very clear, and any "ambiguity" is purely due to intentional misinterpretation by anti gun judges.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Luandir 4/26/2021 3:14:25 PM (No. 767768)
Where in the Second Amendment do the words "only at home" appear?
If Roberts can't stop this, and it goes on the side of freedom, it will only increase the pressure to pack the Court.
2 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DVC 4/26/2021 4:22:26 PM (No. 767827)
Twenty states have Constitutional Carry, no permit required for open or concealed carry by any adult who can legally own a gun.
Only 8 states still have restrictive non-objective standards, "may issue" laws, most make the de facto situation is "do not issue", from the de jure "may issue". Hawaii is an example....the never issue carry permits even though they are permitted by law, they are never issued at all. Many states are like that or nearly so.
Now that the NORM is "shall issue" objective standards in 42 states, and Constutional Carry (no permit required) in about half of them, it would be easier for the Supremes to knock down 'may issue' laws as outside of the norm, and excessively restrictive.
And the anti-gun folks will throw a fit, like they did in Illinois.....and nothing bad will happen, just like in Illinois and every other of the 42 states that changed their laws in the last 30+ years. The good that will happen will be that occasionally a violent felon will be shot by his chosen victim. And we can applaud.
2 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
MickTurn 4/26/2021 5:33:44 PM (No. 767902)
OK SCOTUS "Conservatives" DON'T BLOW THIS ONE!
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)