more detail on Alito's response to the dissenting judges

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...st-gun-case-n2609218

Justice Alito:

Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.

The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.

And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year.

I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.

Great victory for the 2nd and a huge bonus that my unelected Governess has her panties all in a bunch. She has vowed to bring the hammer down on us and do what's necessary to work around the ruling.

Vowed to bring down the hammer, eh?

Bitch, you recently took another vow, or have you forgotten?

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

^^^

Then, she straight up, lied.

quote:

more detail on Alito's response to the dissenting judges

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...st-gun-case-n2609218

Justice Alito:

Upper deck home run! I love everything about this statement and the total smack down of half of the arguments for gun control/bans.


----

As for Balzé Halzé's post, Clarence just said, fuck around and find out.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:

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.

But IL did make a long list of places you can't carry to discourage people and institute a relatively long training requirement.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
^^^ Oh, I'm already wondering how this will affect what legislation actually comes out of the US Senate on the basis of the "compromise framework" we've heard so much about, too.

I suspect it will have no impact at all. I have the shame that one of my 2 Republican Senators (Cornyn) carried the water for that treacherous Bill. I told him several times (e-mails and phone calls) that if he voted for it he had lost my vote. Unfortunately, he's not up for reelection for a while and probably doesn't care.

Regarding the Bill in the Senate, I think the best outcome from that (it will pass both Houses and be signed into law) is that in the future any "Red Flag Law" will ultimately be revoked by SCOTUS as unconstitutional (violating several of the Bill of Rights Amendments).

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by chbibc:
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.

Go watch the videos of this nitwit today. She's off the rails and is clueless when it comes to the insane statements she made today. Thomas's opinion in excellent, as is Alito's. The three liberal justices are once again...garbage.

As it stands right now there are only four places where CCW is restricted in NY State. A NY state pistol license is not valid in NYC. You can't carry in a courthouse, on ANY school grounds including anything owned or managed by a school disirict or college\university, and you can't carry at the capitol plaza in Albany. Other than that any business can ban carry, but there is no signage requirement for warnings. The only thing they can do to you if they discover you have a gun is ask you to leave. Expect our not so fair gov to call the legislature into an emergency session to hammer out all kinds of off limits places and draconian penalties in an attempt to make the new unrestricted pistol license as useless as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
It's a good ruling and a good day for gun owners in these may issue states.

Should gun owners in those states expect their governments to throw up other barriers to carry, absolutely, but they should expect that anyway considering the past actions of their politicians.

2A Foundations press release indicates they fully expect some roadblocks to be put up by governments in NY. The main one being restrictions on carry locations IE declaration of safe spaces that make carry difficult. Places such as schools, church, hospitals, government buildings, sporting events to name a few, and those are generally off limits in many Shall Issue states anyway.

2AF stated they are watching to see if any of these roadblocks to carry are put up.

For now though, we should let them enjoy the victory it's well deserved.

Might set the grounds for an interesting challenge for the suppressor approval process as an undue burden on the exercise of a right.

Bit risky, as it could invokve showing that there is “no” safe way to shoot an unsuppressed gun, but that may be factually accurate.

It's very disturbing to see the complete lack of critical reasoning, logic and thought, including the ability to distinguish causal vs tangential relationships, in sitting members of the SC who dissented to the ruling.

What is wrong with the nomination and vetting process that allows this? Have we no standards as a country anymore?

As a previous poster implicated, nothing will change anywhere Demorats are in charge. When was the last time you've seen a Democrat politician do anything correctly based any court ruling let alone on principle ? Democrat officials in NY don't give one flip of SCOTUS rulings against their plans. They'll just ignore any and all SCOTUS rulings and continue to do whatever they want regardless of any and all rulings against them regarding 2A issues. You could have 100 SCOTUS rulings around the 2A, narrowly tailored or not, and it won't make one iota of difference. Until the Demorat bastards are thrown out, nothing will change. They know they won't be overruled or prosecuted for any and all reasons, they are quite literally untouchable, since all of their friends, colleagues, and partners in crime are the same type of people. Judges will continue to rule that 1=2 without shame, because they can, overflowing with personal and professional hubris that makes them gods in their own eyes. It just doesn't matter in those types of cities.

I know this isn't complete reality, but it sure seems pretty close to reality for all practical purposes in those areas.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
It's very disturbing to see the complete lack of critical reasoning, logic and thought, including the ability to distinguish causal vs tangential relationships, in sitting members of the SC who dissented to the ruling.

What is wrong with the nomination and vetting process that allows this? Have we no standards as a country anymore?

Sure we do. But more stupid people elected other stupid, corrupt, and incompetent imbeciles.

and we have Kamala Harris:

"Today's Supreme Court ruling on guns is deeply troubling as it defies commonsense and the Constitution. Lives are at stake. Congress should pass the bipartisan gun safety proposal immediately and continue to do more to protect our communities."

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Kamala Harris being VP is deeply troubling. Certainly defies common sense too.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
As a previous poster implicated, nothing will change anywhere Demorats are in charge. When was the last time you've seen a Democrat politician do anything correctly based any court ruling let alone on principle ? Democrat officials in NY don't give one flip of SCOTUS rulings against their plans. They'll just ignore any and all SCOTUS rulings and continue to do whatever they want regardless of any and all rulings against them regarding 2A issues. You could have 100 SCOTUS rulings around the 2A, narrowly tailored or not, and it won't make one iota of difference. Until the Demorat bastards are thrown out, nothing will change. They know they won't be overruled or prosecuted for any and all reasons, they are quite literally untouchable, since all of their friends, colleagues, and partners in crime are the same type of people. Judges will continue to rule that 1=2 without shame, because they can, overflowing with personal and professional hubris that makes them gods in their own eyes. It just doesn't matter in those types of cities.

I know this isn't complete reality, but it sure seems pretty close to reality for all practical purposes in those areas.

If this is true, then why do tens of thousands of people have carry permits in Illinois now? Is it because the Democrats there are magnanimous, or were they complying with McDonald v Chicago?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
and we have Kamala Harris:

"Today's Supreme Court ruling on guns is deeply troubling as it defies commonsense and the Constitution. Lives are at stake. Congress should pass the bipartisan gun safety proposal immediately and continue to do more to protect our communities."

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Kamala Harris being VP is deeply troubling. Certainly defies common sense too.

It helps to remember that to many politicians, on both sides, words don't really have any fixed meanings or are actually representative of any concrete idea or principle.

It truly is "Animal Farm" and "1984" for many of them.

Even more to the point, they are like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass."

"‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’

'The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things–that’s all.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master–that’s all.’"

This is dangerous, because us ordinary people walk around using language as if we all understand what it means, more or less. But a politician uses words in whatever sense is convenient, while also knowing that we cannot help ourselves from assigning the usual meaning to them. They are fundamentally false and tricksters, using our own understandings against us.

Regardless of the words they use…

We all understand the philosophies, tactics and machinations of Totalitarianism, collectivism and state before the individual.

If their pie holes are open it matters not what sounds come out of them because it’s all the same toxic spew.

Explicitly saying what you seem to be suggesting, the 10th only comes into play in situations where a right or responsibility isn't assigned to the federal government by the constitution. Since the constitution has the 2nd Amendment, and that amendment has been determined to confer an individual right, the 10th amendment is taken off the table on this subject. The federal courts, and likely the rest federal government, can enforce it on the states.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

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.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,

^^^ I think you almost certainly will.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
This is dangerous, because us ordinary people walk around using language as if we all understand what it means, more or less. But a politician uses words in whatever sense is convenient, while also knowing that we cannot help ourselves from assigning the usual meaning to them. They are fundamentally false and tricksters, using our own understandings against us.

In abstract, this wouldn't be much more irritating than when it happens during an argument on the internutz. What really drives me up a tree is that (1) this is how they take the initiative, so the conversation begins deep in the bullshit patch and (2) people don't immediately recognize this as a desperate ploy by someone who has no moral, factual or logical basis for demanding what they demand.