Law Supreme Court says Second Amendment guarantees right to carry guns in public - The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.

1655995616158.png

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public for self defense, finding its requirement that applicants seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun demonstrate a "proper cause" to do so in public is unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision upholding New York's 108-year-old law limiting who can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Proponents of the measure warned that a ruling from the high court invalidating it could threaten gun restrictions in several states and lead to more firearms on city streets.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically-divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-new-york-gun-law-second-amendment (A)

 

Attachments

  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar, Doc Cassidy, Koby_Fish and 46 others
Click to expand...
frozenrunner said:
Americans will soon be able to use their God-given right to carry a firearm to force women at gunpoint to carry their babies to term :smug:
Click to expand...
As well as using a firearm to force a voter to present his ID photo at the voting booth. :story:

The US. Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that leaders of North Carolina’s Republican legislature can step in to advocate for a voter ID law in court that they believe the state’s Democratic attorney general isn’t fighting hard enough to defend.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only one to dissent in the case, which has been closely watched given November’s crucial midterm elections are just months away.

“At the heart of this lawsuit lies a challenge to the constitutionality of a North Carolina election law. But the merits of that dispute are not before us, only an antecedent question of civil procedure: Are two leaders of North Carolina’s state legislature entitled to participate in the case under the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,” Gorsuch wrote in the opinion.
Click to expand...
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Humble Crab, Wooo, CarlosDanger and 16 others
Did anyone notice this part? Uncle Clarence is gonna break the backboard from all this dunking.

FV8iZVaXoAQoUez.jpg

moonman1488 said:
So basically every state will have constitutional carry now, and you won't need to get a CHL to conceal carry?
Click to expand...
No, instead all states are, at bare minimum, "shall-issue" states, which means the government can't deny you a permit if you meet all the qualifications.

This ruling strikes down "may-issue" laws, in which states can deny you a permit for subjective or arbitrary reasons even if you otherwise qualify.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Humble Crab, Klamimera, chainer and 42 others
Kermit Jizz said:
>legal mechanism doesn't serve the left
>it must be destroyed
Every fucking time. I wish they'd come and just say what they feel, they want to rule without the slightest opposition.
Click to expand...
It's because you haven't fully characterized the pathology. Allow me to explain: the left/libs/SJWs/etc are almost to a person exceedingly self-centered. "Main Character Syndrome" may be a colloquial term but it illustrates the underlying motivations very well. They are the morally-good protagonist on which the entire story centers. Resisting what they want is defiance of the natural and moral order from their perspective. After all they are the ultimate good, so surely their opposition is bad. They want legal authority as a quasi-mandate to unilaterally force the issue because it's their only viable method to do so without becoming bad themselves. So any critique of what they feel are already-restrained actions are perceived as personal attacks.

So the "bad guys" are not only evil and trying to corrupt the perfect world the leftist is always almost about to realize, we have the audacity to characterize their mercy as pernicious. Even the implication of their moral superiority being tainted makes them angrier than anything else. They rationalize just like abusers, we made them do this.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken, stupid orc, Klamimera and 31 others
Dergint said:
Something tells me that she'd still call security if she saw anyone walking down her street with a musket.

And something tells me security won't be carrying muskets.
Click to expand...
I know it's 50 years after the Bill of Rights, but a standard .52 or .50-70 Sharps has specs not far off a Barrett. Yeah, effective range is 1000yds vs almost 2000 for the M82, but you are using an iron peep sight with the Sharps rifle instead of a modern optical scope. With modern optics I'm sure much more of the 3000yd max range would be available. That's technology some of the people at the Constitutional Convention would have lived to see and they said nothing.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken, SCSI, Nate Higgers and 7 others
The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
"Our right to have restrictions"
"yOu CaN't YeLl FiRe In A cRoWdEd ThEaTeR"
Click to expand...
"Fire in a crowded theater" was used in a ruling to justify arresting political dissidents during WW1. That decision was later overturned. So you know that anyone who parrots it doesn't know the law, and are just using platitudes to justify being petty dictators.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken, Humble Crab, chainer and 24 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back