quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
My take on where our current SCOTUS stands is that it seems they have a slightly firmer grasp on what is and is not within "the states" rights. And that's a very good thing.

It's not just about the 2nd amendment, it pushes the 10th amendment to the fore as well.

This decision does not implicate the 10th amendment.

This decision isn't, but the states in question will soon start flexing their regulatory muscle, and that may well be the next battlefront. Or maybe I'm just off here.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
My take on where our current SCOTUS stands is that it seems they have a slightly firmer grasp on what is and is not within "the states" rights. And that's a very good thing.

It's not just about the 2nd amendment, it pushes the 10th amendment to the fore as well.

This decision does not implicate the 10th amendment.

This decision isn't, but the states in question will soon start flexing their regulatory muscle, and that may well be the next battlefront. Or maybe I'm just off here.

That would be rich. These anti-2A states, flexing their 10A rights as an argument to abrogate your 2A rights. I'd love to hear that pleading.

quote:

That would be rich. These anti-2A states, flexing their 10A rights as an argument to abrogate your 2A rights. I'd love to hear that pleading.

I never put anything past these commies.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
My take on where our current SCOTUS stands is that it seems they have a slightly firmer grasp on what is and is not within "the states" rights. And that's a very good thing.

It's not just about the 2nd amendment, it pushes the 10th amendment to the fore as well.

This decision does not implicate the 10th amendment.

This decision isn't, but the states in question will soon start flexing their regulatory muscle, and that may well be the next battlefront. Or maybe I'm just off here.

But that doesn't either. The supremacy clause prohibits the states from legislating in derogation of constitutional protections or proper federal legislation. If a state attempts to regulate firearms in a way that contradicts the 2d amendment, the supremacy clause prohibits that. The 10th amendment doesn't give a state the power to contradict the constitution.

To put it in 10th amendment terms; restricting carry laws in some way that New York might like would usurp a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution and be a power prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States. The 10th, by its own terms, gives states no freedom on this.

What the 10th does is allow a state to EXPAND rights and protections. More specifically, it allows states to exercise any powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as delegated (assigned) to the federal government.

I feel like buying a Supreme Court Challenge Coin or something in celebration.

I’m gratified at this victory. I think it would have been impossible without Trump’s nominations and Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg’s stubborn hubris. I think it’s worth noting how fast tyrants can oppress and how long it takes to regain liberty.

The governor of my wonderful state has been quoted that she will be exploring ways to circumvent the ruling. I never thought it was possible for me to be more disgusted with her and her party, yet here we are.

quote:

I think it’s worth noting how fast tyrants can oppress and how long it takes to regain liberty.

And thus the reason that local politicians do these things and why we should try and oust said political people.

Kavanaugh is kind of the bad guy here for a complete victory. Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch wanted to strike down any licensing provisions as well. Kavanaugh and Roberts dissented. We know Roberts is a swinging dipshit, but Kavanaugh is disappointing as well in this case.

In more than half of the country this makes no difference since they are constitutional carry, but for those in blue states, the fight continues.

quote:

Originally posted by Shifferbrains:
Kavanaugh is kind of the bad guy here for a complete victory. Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch wanted to strike down any licensing provisions as well. Kavanaugh and Roberts dissented. We know Roberts is a swinging dipshit, but Kavanaugh is disappointing as well in this case.

The case didn't present all licensing schemes. It presented the NY scheme with its requirement of particular dangers. Therefore, it would have been a stretch to put the kibosh on all licensing schemes, and might well have been a judicial overreach because that would have been a ruling on an issue not before the court on these facts. That is bad jurisprudence.

If you want to overturn any licensing scheme, you should challenge the least restrictive licensing scheme in the country. Then it will be before the court.

If we don't want lefty judges making bad and illegitimate rulings, we can't allow it from "our" judges just because we like the potential ruling.

jhe888, thank you for that explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Balze,

She can't attack the decision straight on but she can put up barriers.

Didn't someone here post up the requirements you have to meet to purchase a handgun in NY? I think so and it was a huge pain. They just passed a bunch of gun control rules this week so they feel empowered.

They could mandate 30 day waiting periods, manual review of FBI database searches (like my state and then purposely understaffs the position), mandate your gun dealer run. A serial number check through other databases as your expense to verify the gun has a clean record, demonstrate safe gun handling and so on. And they state can slow walk implementing that.

No one is foolish enough to think they will ignore the ruling but obstacles will be put in the way of easy implementation. It's the liberal way.

When Illinois restrictive laws were struck down, it only took a few months and CCW permits were being given out by the thousands. Everyone thought Illinois would drag the process out, but the liberal state gov. essentially gave up.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:

When Illinois restrictive laws were struck down, it only took a few months and CCW permits were being given out by the thousands. Everyone thought Illinois would drag the process out, but the liberal state gov. essentially gave up.

Identified a new “revenue stream” perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Balze,

She can't attack the decision straight on but she can put up barriers.

Didn't someone here post up the requirements you have to meet to purchase a handgun in NY? I think so and it was a huge pain. They just passed a bunch of gun control rules this week so they feel empowered.

They could mandate 30 day waiting periods, manual review of FBI database searches (like my state and then purposely understaffs the position), mandate your gun dealer run. A serial number check through other databases as your expense to verify the gun has a clean record, demonstrate safe gun handling and so on. And they state can slow walk implementing that.

No one is foolish enough to think they will ignore the ruling but obstacles will be put in the way of easy implementation. It's the liberal way.

You are spot on.

Am I correct in thinking the SCOTUS ruling has immediate effect?

Next, I am in MO and our neighboring state, IL, will issue a CCW to a resident but refuses to recognize any other resident CCW's.

What are your thoughts on carrying in IL or other states which do not recognize those traveling through/in their states with valid CCW's from their resident state.

Did SCOTUS just give a green light for the prior paragraph?

Congratulation to all living in former "may issue" states!

Make sure that your push through the local roadblocks by voicing and organizing locally to defeat them at every turn.

If you have a State firearms Assn, join it if not already a member.

HK Ag

quote:

Originally posted by h2oys:
Am I correct in thinking the SCOTUS ruling has immediate effect?

Next, I am in MO and our neighboring state, IL, will issue a CCW to a resident but refuses to recognize any other resident CCW's.

What are your thoughts on carrying in IL or other states which do not recognize those traveling through/in their states with valid CCW's from their resident state.

Did SCOTUS just give a green light for the prior paragraph?

The effect is not yet in place but people are acting in keeping with the decision.

The Supreme Court case was remanded back down for further proceedings consistent with today's decision which means that the lower court has to issue a new decision with the Supreme Court's guidelines.

It's a pro forma event by the lower court.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
I feel like buying a Supreme Court Challenge Coin or something in celebration.

I keep telling myself the P210 Carry is overpriced.

quote:

What are your thoughts on carrying in IL or other states which do not recognize those traveling through/in their states with valid CCW's from their resident state.

Illinois is ok with it so long as you're in your car. I do a fair amount of work on the Illinois side and am generally armed. That's because I'm either driving or on private property with permission from the owner. I don't carry (outside of my vehicle) if I'm stopping to get fuel or something to eat.