Will the Supreme Court put a stake through
the heart of gun control?
American Thinker,
by
Frank Friday
Original Article
Posted By: DW626,
6/7/2022 7:06:05 AM
The irony is rich. Old Joe Biden, floundering in the polls and needing a distraction, seized on the recent mass shootings to launch a gun control push. Many conservatives are panicked by his talk of an "assault weapons" ban, whatever that means, and outlawing all 9mm ammunition.
Yet, without any compromise on badly needed school safety provisions, it is hard to see even modest federal gun restrictions going forward. In fact, the Republican proposal is starting to look like no more than what McConnell, and even Trump, was offering the Dems in 2019.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 6/7/2022 7:22:26 AM (No. 1178450)
We’ve got a criminal problem, not a gun problem. Lock up all democrats until they learn to behave....which will be a very, very long time.
32 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Strike3 6/7/2022 8:00:53 AM (No. 1178504)
If they don't, the millions of armed Americans will. Either way, the 2nd Amendment itself guarantees its own existence.
20 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 6/7/2022 8:06:35 AM (No. 1178515)
That shall not be infringed is absolute. Gun control legislation requires amending the 2A. Without amendment the 2A is absolute. Congress should know that. 46 should know that.
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
udanja99 6/7/2022 8:10:32 AM (No. 1178523)
“… an "assault weapons" ban, whatever that means….”
When you get right down to it, almost ANYTHING can be used as an assault weapon. Those who want to maim or kill will always find a way.
19 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Hermit_Crab 6/7/2022 8:30:42 AM (No. 1178545)
Probably not.
There are only two Justices that actually understand and believe in the Bill Of Rights.
(Thomas and Alito),
11 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
seamusm 6/7/2022 8:40:57 AM (No. 1178555)
Well good people - I prefer to place my trust in that squad car full of social workers. Against an armed crazy they would be able to 'lay their lives down for another' - and maybe the bad guy will run out of bullets.
3 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
BarryNo 6/7/2022 9:01:49 AM (No. 1178570)
They'd better...
4 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
sw penn 6/7/2022 9:29:21 AM (No. 1178603)
2nd Amendment; bottom line:
The right to self defense against the State
is never,
can never,
must never
depend upon permission from the State.
15 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
red1066 6/7/2022 9:38:36 AM (No. 1178619)
The demosluts are desperate for anything that looks like a win and to get something other than the economy off the front page. They need to fire up their base before the rout that's coming in November. However, even their base is missing in action. Look for the riots and demonstrations when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
cor-vet 6/7/2022 10:36:56 AM (No. 1178704)
I'm not sure that even the low-life John Roberts would go for this. But then, I don't know what the swamp has on him!
6 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Italiano 6/7/2022 10:38:03 AM (No. 1178706)
If they don't, we will.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
MDConservative 6/7/2022 11:09:14 AM (No. 1178725)
FTA: "Ordinary people in big cities could take charge of their own safety and that of their neighborhoods by carrying licensed firearms. A real sense of civic pride and responsibility could form, where today there is none."
"Ordinary people" won't carry firearms, period. Frankly, they see no need as their communities are "safe". Fearporn is part of the gun debate. School shootings are more rare than lightning striking people, and here we are talking about spending billions in recurring expenditures to hire 100,000 useless school cops, arm (and presumably train and screen) teachers, hire "combat vets" (also screened for PTSD and other issues), harden schools, etc., etc. No one mentions simply locking the door that allowed the Uvalde shooter into the school..."bad lock"...yeah, sure.
If one wants to talk about "gun responsibility" then be prepared for laws to define irresponsible gun behavior with stiff sentences. No whining when it happens. And then it's back to the courts.
1 person likes this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 6/7/2022 11:39:05 AM (No. 1178756)
I commented on this yesterday in an article which was obsessing about all the "damage" that overturning Roe v. Wade would do.
My point was much like the author's. This really significant gun rights case has been percolating through the courts and the rotten release of the draft of a Roe v. Wade opinion has overwhelmed all other things in the media about the Supreme Court. Yet, this soon to be released judgement may literally wipe out all significant restrictions in NY state on gun purchasing, ownership, and carrying and require that these laws be removed from the books.
In the SC decision in Heller wiped out the laws in DC which made it nearly impossible to buy a gun, or if you had a gun you could not legally keep it in your home any way except unloaded, and "disassembled", or with a trigger lock on it. That was eliminated in 2008. And then in 2010 the McDonald decision erased the Chicago area bans on ownership of handguns and other guns. A few years after that, a federal judge, based on Heller and McDonald decisions, struck down Illinois' "may issue" (basically almost never issue) concealed carry law, and restrictive purchase laws. The state of Illinois was ordered to create some sort of an objective standards concealed carry permit system, within a 90 day window of the stay on the decision finding all their laws unconstitutional. They did this and now Illinois residents who meet basic standards of "law abiding citizens" can obtain a concealed carry permit, and purchase guns which were prohibited 15 years ago entirely in some towns, including Chicago. And there were essentially no permits to carry a concealed weapon in the state back then, too.
This decision, coming in a few weeks, is very likely to be an extension of the kind of rulings seen in Heller and McDonald, and to erase the whole antigun set of laws in NYC, perhaps even wider
than that, maybe covering NY state laws, too. It very possibly may herald the end to all "discretionary" (called may issue) concealed carry permitting systems, such as California, NY state, NYC, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts. I estimate that this ruling may well bring all 50 states to have objective standards for issuing concealed carry permits.
I dream that they will also include an Article IV, section 1 requirement for states to, under the "full faith and credit" requirements of that section of the Constitution, recognize ALL other states' concealed carry permits like all states must recognize all other states' driver's licenses. That may not happen in this case, but it sure would be nice.
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 6/7/2022 12:18:45 PM (No. 1178800)
Re #12, I have been training more and more 'ordinary people' every year because what you predict isn't the case. More and more people are purchasing guns for self defense. I have a current class of three women, one had never touched a gun, one had shot a .22 rifle with her father 20 years ago, and one had shot a few times with her hubby, over 25 years ago. All three want to be proficient and have their own personal handgun for self defense now.
Last year, 38 million new guns were purchased, the year before 39 million new guns, so far this year sales are running about 2.5 to 3 million a month, on track for 30-36 million sales this year. That's 100 million new guns in the last three years, and about 210 million new guns purchased since 2014. Those are a lot of 'ordinary people' who are purchasing guns.
Here are the official NICS check numbers. A NICS check is required for each new gun sale through a federally licensed dealer. Many used guns are sold in private sales, which don't show up on these numbers, so this is the FLOOR on gun sales, guaranteed more than this number changed ownership in the year.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view
0 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
bobn.t 6/7/2022 2:00:11 PM (No. 1178893)
If it's menacing looking, it's got to be an assault weapon.
Nancy Pelosi meets that standard.
2 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 6/7/2022 3:11:44 PM (No. 1178958)
#13's excellent lawyer-like analysis suggests he or she listened to Court's oral argument in this case, which focused on the discretion granted by the relevant New York "may issue" procedures. It's probable the Court will hold that the procedures must be "shall issue" (the permit) unless the decision maker, following limited and clearly defined criteria, makes written "findings of fact" and "conclusion of law" that justify a DENIAL of a permit application.
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Omen55 6/7/2022 3:17:42 PM (No. 1178965)
Expect more screams about packing SCOTUS after this.
0 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 6/7/2022 7:54:09 PM (No. 1179201)
#4 is, of course, correct. Timothy McVeigh kills 168 with a truck full of fertilizer , a guy in Bath, Michigan back in the 1920s blows up an elementary school with dynamite killing 38 children and several others. Let’s not forget 9-11 killed thousands with box cutters and airliners. Murderous nutballs will always find a way.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "DW626"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)