Supreme Court Hands Down Biggest Second
Amendment Victory Since Heller
Townhall,
by
Spencer Brown
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
6/23/2022 10:55:15 AM
The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its opinion in a landmark Second Amendment rights case, the biggest win for gun rights since the court's Heller ruling holding that "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense." (Tweets) The ruling came down 6-3, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — plus concurring opinions by Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh. Justices Breyer wrote the dissent joined by Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
LadyVet 6/23/2022 11:15:41 AM (No. 1194421)
Jeff Tubin on the ruling:
"I've got two guns. Now I can carry both in public."
(Note: Vietnam vets will understand the reference.)
14 people like this.
That’s great, but it will be tempered in blue states by a deluge of red flag accusations by liberals against their conservative neighbors. Can’t keep and bear what the cops have kicked in your door and confiscated. Why anyone is still a registered GOP baffles me. The party hates you.
11 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 6/23/2022 11:21:37 AM (No. 1194427)
Hallelujah! After 111 years, the unconstitutional Sullivan Law is GONE.
18 people like this.
This outcome was expected and is very good news with national implications.
15 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
DVC 6/23/2022 11:34:50 AM (No. 1194446)
Now all the remaining eight states with objective standards laws on concealed carry permits will be forced to change their laws.
The anti gun folks will be frantic.
12 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 6/23/2022 11:38:50 AM (No. 1194451)
Something has happened with Roberts? He is moving from jellyfish wishy-washy to full bore Constitutionalist.
Whatever the leftists had on him before - - seems to be no longer operative.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Gordon Freeman 6/23/2022 11:49:53 AM (No. 1194464)
#1... One of them would be a rifle?
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 6/23/2022 11:53:48 AM (No. 1194467)
This is a huge ruling. I hope the MA gun owners go after the state laws there with a vengeance now.
For those who don't reside in the peoples paradise of Cambridge in Massachusetts in order to own any firearm at all, or the ammunition and accesories that go with them one must get a concealed carry permit. A FULL BLOWN CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT to simply posess a shotgun to hunt with. To be in possesion of a single bullet or empty shell casing without an active carry permit is a felony.
And here is the real kicker, there are currently no standards for who is and is not eligable for said permit. That is left entirely up to the chief of police in the town in which you reside. You have to take a course and get a certificate before you can even apply for said permit and at most the first question asked is where do you live. If your answer is any of the towns on the red list the instructor kindly informs you that you are wasting your time and we will give you a full rebate.
Those towns on the red list have a chief of police who will not authorize any permits in his town, essentially making it a gun free zone (remember you CANNOT own a firearm of any kind without a carry permit).
You are required to have an in person interview with the chief of police, and in the town I lived in (Thank God, no more) you needed three letters of reference from "upstanding citizens not related to you" declaring you an upright and respectable citizen.
Even then, if the Chief doesn't like your haircut, your demeanor, anyone in your family, you had an unpaid parking ticket or he simply is in a bad mood because Dunkin Donuts screwed up his bagel order (Anyone who has lived in MA will understand that struggle) you will be denied. You can spend tens of thousands on appealing the ruling and after many years you will probably win because the state AG does not ever want a case to actually get to a federal court, for obvious reasons. But remember the one you really PO'd doing that is the chief law enforcement official where you live. No more warnings for you.
7 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 6/23/2022 11:57:39 AM (No. 1194473)
I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be. However, is this a shot across the bow on the constitutionality of 'Red Flag Laws'? Seems Thomas was clear that the 2nd amendment wasn't subject to goobernment permission.
19 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Georgia Peach 6/23/2022 12:28:39 PM (No. 1194504)
Now maybe we will get serious about protecting children in schools. Armed guards, one way in with a metal detector. .Works at court houses.
9 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
broken01 6/23/2022 12:37:22 PM (No. 1194509)
To #6 Obama just mailed Roberts' "boys" back to him that's all. As for the ruling it is great news and we can expect the anti-2A guns just shoot themselves leftist knuckleheads to go bonkers over it.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Krause 6/23/2022 12:55:47 PM (No. 1194522)
I'd like to have somebody tell me that I don't have a right to defend myself.
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
formerNYer 6/23/2022 1:41:55 PM (No. 1194544)
I wish the article has at least a taste of what the 3 dissenting judges were thinking, it was probably a lot like the jughead president malarky about the 2nd amendment not being absolute.
Good for the court. It's time to have constitutional carry in all 50 states.
6 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Omen55 6/23/2022 2:16:33 PM (No. 1194569)
I remember how many of dem told the atty Marc Elias to drop the case because they were afraid this would happen.
So happy he ignored dem.
LOL!!
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
downnout 6/23/2022 2:18:43 PM (No. 1194572)
Many years ago I applied for a CCP in Pennsylvania. I had to be interviewed by the Police chief in Harrisburg. I could tell he didn’t want to approve my application but he had no legitimate grounds to deny me. I had gone through extensive training (including out scoring a number of his officers) and frequently had to carry substantial sums of cash.
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 6/23/2022 2:40:11 PM (No. 1194592)
No government, including the federal government, can require that an adult must acquire a prerequisite permit to OPEN CARRY commonly carried handguns.
I find two of Thomas' sentences to be amusing:
1. "But when is comes to interpreting the Constitution not all history is created equal."
2. "Notwithstanding the ink the parties spilt . . . " (regarding the 1328 Statutes of Northampton). This is a fun dig regarding the amount of lawyering the parties have expended discussing and arguing the alleged relevance of this 694 year old Statute, which the majority opinion explains has had no relevance in England for the last 400 years, and has zero relevance when interpreting the Framers' intent as expressed in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
4 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
red1066 6/23/2022 2:41:58 PM (No. 1194595)
This could also affect Maryland's concealed carry permit rules, since the same issue is in effect when applying for a concealed carry permit in Maryland. One has to have a reason to get a permit to carry, and self-defense isn't a good enough reason.
5 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
DVC 6/23/2022 3:25:52 PM (No. 1194642)
Re #8, your state will very quickly be involved in a lawsuit which is based on this ruling, I am sure, and the state requirements for "proving a special need", or however Mass phrases it, will be struck down, based on this ruling, and the state will be forced to create some sort of a concealed carry law. Most, when forced create an objective standards concealed carry law, commonly called "shall issue"....because if you meet the written standards they SHALL issue you a permit, not "may issue", which is what was just struck down.
And any law which essentially prevents almost everyone from owning and carrying a gun will be struck down in a "dominoes" process, state by state, but relatively quickly, I think.
"Keep AND bear".....own and carry. Both are requirements of the Constitution, and the states are now on notice that they cannot prevent you from keeping OR bearing your gun unless there is some objective proof that you are unable to be trusted. Moves the burden of proof back to them to prove you can't hae your Constitutional right, not you proving that you have a "need".
Typically the requirements have been 1) age 21 or more 2) no history of violent crimes...typically no felonies and in many states 3) some training. Some states have made the training fairly painful, like 16 hours of class and range time required, others have 8 hours, and others have no training mandated.
As an instructor, I am in favor of training....but it is a Constitutional RIGHT and you don't need training to exercise any other rights. And most folks are smart enough to get some training, anyway.
I am currently running three women through a handgun training class, next session this PM. They sought me out because they want to learn and be safe. Most normal people go in this direction.
4 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 6/23/2022 3:48:15 PM (No. 1194659)
SCOTUS got it right. The 2A is the law of the land. All federal gun legislation is mute without amending the 2A. "That shall not be infringed" means it. Arms is also not defined in the 2A. That means knives, swords, pitchforks, hoes. medieval pikes, cannon, howitzers, dinner forks, etc., are allowed arms, not just firearms. The government has no say as the 2A protects us from the government, not the other way around.
3 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
LonestarM3 6/23/2022 4:22:45 PM (No. 1194676)
If any wonders about the importance of preserving the Supreme Court, this ruling should provide the answer.
Chief Justice Roberts, to his credit, seems to have deferred to Justice Clarence Thomas to write the Majority Opinion, joining him in along with four others joining and two concurring.
I thought it would be impossible to have more respect for Justice Thomas than I already had. Turns out I was wrong - it was easy. I can't wait to read the opinions. (Including the three dissenting justices who must think the Constitution does not REALLY mean what it says:-)
Just in time to make the Fourth of July celebrations to really rock!
2 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
GirlwithaCurl 6/23/2022 4:29:15 PM (No. 1194684)
One down, but one more BIG one to go! Pray for the end of legalized baby killing!
1 person likes this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
DVC 6/23/2022 9:55:31 PM (No. 1194909)
Darn it! IN #5, that should be "WITHOUT" not "with".
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)