New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

[bluedog225]

From the Supreme Court of the United States.

135 pages. Full text here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...own-ny-gun-law

03FF9697-691D-4FCA-A40A-CA5657E01C12.jpg
BDBEB4F6-E456-4D43-B0DB-2D26704B6793.jpg

[Peerie Maa]

SCOTUS seems to be reading more into the words of the militia clauses and the 2nd that is actually written.
Can any one point to the words self-defense in either the Constitution or Amendment?

[Norman Bernstein]

It seems that the phrase 'well regulated militia' has been completely ignored... and the stated constitutional reason for the second amendment... notably, 'for the security of the state' has been perverted. Neither textualism, or originalism, could possibly be justifications for this decision.

As I have said before, SCOTUS is the MOST political branch of government.

[Paul Pless]

shall not be infringed, bitches

[bluedog225]

It is decided

[Jim Mahan]

Not that I have any intention of reading it, but I have to wonder what there is to say, relevant to the subject, that takes a hundred-thirty-five pages.

[Peerie Maa]

shall not be infringed, bitches

What shall not be infringed?
The right to own a long gun for putting food in the pot?
The right to belong to a well regulated militia?
The right to wear your penis extension when shopping at Walmart?
The right to carry a weapon for shooting at cops at a traffic stop?
Which right would that be, O Fartmeister?

[Keith Wilson]

We need to repeal the @#$&#^ Second Amendment. Yeah, I know, sparkly pink unicorns. Or get enough sane people on the Supreme Court who can read the first half of the sentence, the part about the militia.

The lives lost in the US because of idiot gun fetishists probably number in the millions, or near. Makes we wish I believed in hell.

[bluedog225]

6683162[/URL]]What shall not be infringed?
The right to own a long gun for putting food in the pot?
The right to belong to a well regulated militia?
The right to wear your penis extension when shopping at Walmart?
The right to carry a weapon for shooting at cops at a traffic stop?
Which right would that be, O Fartmeister?

The rights not afforded the Irish in 1845?

How might that have played out differently?

I love it when the brits don’t like our stuff.

[bluedog225]

The opinion really is worth a read. If you have the discipline for such fun.

Agree or disagree, moot point.

A lot of smart people spent a lot of time on it.

64097FC4-E36E-4B44-AB5A-52706D2F264D.jpg

[Peerie Maa]

You can argue with the first paragraph right off. The amendment's opening clause links it firmly to the needs of the militia.
As I said above, there is nothing in the wording about "confrontation". That was made up out of the whole cloth.

[AndanteEd]

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

2nd amendment.JPG

Depending on how the second amendment is interpreted, either people can bear arms or they can't.

What it does not say is that people can bear arms subject to reasonable, well defined restrictions such as when they might be before, er, justices of the peace and other government officials.

It sounds horribly as if they realise that guns are rather dangerous to be on the receiving end of and so a sensible compromise is to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms anywhere near themselves and their colleagues but, so as to keep the gun folks happy, they leave the general public in the firing line.

[CWSmith]

Scalia... I'd like to p1ss on his grave.

[Paul Pless]

You can argue with the. . .

are you new here?

this is the bilge

we have in actuality argued whether water is wet in this venue. . .

[Landrith]

I would like to think that courts are insulated from the political mood of the moment. Of course I know that is a humanly impossible expectation of them. That is why the news being reported here of the already gun controlled Australia using police to crack down on anti lockdown speech dissent was to me the tipping point against gun control in the USA. The bilge didn't' see it that way and indeed it was an "apple and oranges" comparison. But among the age group of Americans that are politically engaged and have the property and income that matters, our fringe right wing and libertarian irrational, ridiculous belief that the 2nd Amendment was somehow a meaningful protection and safeguard for 1st Amendment freedom of speech suddenly resonated with the people that really run America....

Of course that was the time period when the current legal thinking jelled. Then the Ukraine happened and Ukrainians were shown in Western mainstream media training with plywood rifles. But by that time the change in consensus which would have been infinitely reinforced had already happened.

[Osborne Russell]

We need to repeal the @#$&#^ Second Amendment.

Dare I say . . .

[Peerie Maa]

are you new here?

this is the bilge

we have in actuality argued whether water is wet in this venue. . .

Wet fart?

[Paul Pless]

We need to repeal the @#$&#^ Second Amendment. Yeah, I know, sparkly pink unicorns. Or get enough sane people on the Supreme Court who can read the first half of the sentence, the part about the militia.

The lives lost in the US because of idiot gun fetishists probably number in the millions, or near. Makes we wish I believed in hell.

the progressive lost cause, gun control. . .

imagine how much better off we'd be as a nation if dems would drop gun control from their brand

[Canoeyawl]

Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion...

[bluedog225]

What a great country where a black man who grew up in a poor community in Georgia can sit on the supreme court.

[birlinn]

the progressive lost cause, gun control. . .

imagine how much better off we'd be as a nation if dems would drop gun control from their brand

And imagine how much better off you would be if you had sensible gun control measures that worked.
You know, like civilised countries have....

[Paul Pless]

And imagine how much better off you would be if you had sensible gun control measures that worked.
You know, like civilised countries have....

fantasy

[Keith Wilson]

the progressive lost cause, gun control. . . imagine how much better off we'd be as a nation if dems would drop gun control from their brand

Yeah, right. It may be a lost cause for now, but dropping it would not would not change enough votes to fill a decent size bar, and the piles of corpses will continue to get higher and higher.

What a great country where a black man who grew up in a poor community in Georgia can sit on the supreme court.

And make just as bad decisions as a white man who grew up rich and privileged, or maybe even worse.

[Peerie Maa]

And imagine how much better off you would be if you had sensible gun control measures that worked.
You know, like civilised countries have....

Your medical insurance costs would be lower for a start.
We always bank on about gun deaths. What about the cost to society of putting the survivors back together.

[Canoeyawl]

What a great country where a black man who grew up in a poor community in Georgia can sit on the supreme court.

884CE487-A404-4C27-983D-E0D787F9840A.jpeg

[Stiletto]

[Nicholas Carey]

I would like to think that courts are insulated from the political mood of the moment.

"Insulated from the political mood of the moment?" ROTFLMAO

Not after the Republican Party has spent the last 40 years installing young, unqualified ideologues who are reliable party lackeys and stooges.

Not that the entire blame lies on the Repugnicans. A lot of Democratic senators have voted to confirm these bozos.

There is an assumption on the part of the Senate and the confirmation process that any presidential nominee is qualified and acceptable until proved unfit. The Senate has an affirmative duty to "advise and consent": the assumption should be that the nominee is unfit for the office until the President and the nominee demonstrate that he is not only qualified for the job, but is the best candidate for the job.

They are hiring someone with lifetime tenure after all. They've confirmed people who have essentially zero experience in the courts.

At least in a university, to get tenure, one must

- get hired in a tenure-track position, and
- spend several years or so in that position
- do original research, and
- publish,
- go through tenure review,
- get promoted,
- repeat the above for another several years,

And then

- apply for tenure,
- obtain recommendations from outside scholars,
- get approved by the tenure committee, and
- get approved by the dean, and
- finally, get approved by the provost and granted tenure.

[Nicholas Carey]

Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion...

He can write?

[Tomcat]

What it means has already been decided in a series of recent decisions. Heller and McDonald, mainly. Heller said 1) firearms and today's pistols are protected under 2A; 2) Militia is not the state militia, it is the people (based on 18th century meaning, [sorta like "body politic" is not the legislature]); 3) "Bear arms" means carry on your person, and off one's property.

In McDonald, The supreme court affirmed that the core meaning of 2A is individual self defense.

Carry laws are in most states now, so there is nothing constitutionally surprising about those. The question in this case was only whether NYC is some special fairy land that can ignore the presidents.

2A advocates have been looking for specific cases that make specific rulings possible, and chiseling away at laws that restrict the right of self-defense. These create new precedents, but most are more limited than one might imagine. Regulation is still possible, within bounds.

It is anomalous that the US has 2A, it isn't as weird that given it exists is has force. The reason 2A opponents keep loosing is probably because they don't care as much about it, and it is a powerful wedge issue, so the more mayhem the better. Also, most of the commerce is on the 2A side. Until recently citizen ownership of arms was a positive militarily. It isn't the military that invents good weapons and tactic, it is the private citizen, and sector. But that point no longer seem to have much importance.

By the way, the fact SCOTUS keeps affirming the singular right of self defense does mean that 2A advocacy no longer is linked to having actual militia grade weapons. AR-15s, are mostly self-defense weapons in today's military. The heavy duty killing, particularly at a strategic level, is not done by low powered personal weapons.

[Tomcat]

And imagine how much better off you would be if you had sensible gun control measures that worked.
You know, like civilised countries have....

The reality is other countries have laxer gun laws in certain respects than the US. So for instance throughout much of Europe, a silencer (legal term) is routine, and you can just buy one for what they cost. In the US, they have become more accessible, but there is an expensive tax, and ludicrous restrictions such as on replacement parts. We are talking a tube with baffles here, the new military issue one is 3D printed, obviously not home machines, but you can't put 19th century technology out of reach in the world's most technologically advanced country, particularly one with an open border.

We can get quite a few tasty things in Canada you can't get in the US. We can still, at this time, get everything you would need for a mass shooting. We used to be able to go into a store, and for 450 canadian get an assault rifle and 2000 rounds of ammo. You would have to show your license, but no record was kept, or background check made. You can't do it now because of shortages.

Canada had the least restrictive gun laws after the US, and still does, though there is legislation that has been passed, however, it still pretty reasonable. And we had the lowest murder rate (if you look at brackets, there are some outliers like Japan, but beyond that we were in the group of low murder rate countries where being a 4.6 vs a 4.7 might cost you 20 places, but is statistically meaningless. So guns are not the problem. The US is just massively violent.

[C. Ross]

^ You are mistaken. Canada’s gun controls are substantially stronger than in the U.S. Your memory about buying an automatic weapon is either faulty, or recalls how things were 45 years ago.

The U.S. is an outlier in least restrictive laws, most guns per capita, and most gun deaths per capita. It’s the guns, period.

In the wake of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 came concern over security in general and immigrant radicals in particular. That year Parliament passed a law requiring all aliens to have a permit to possess any kind of gun. Still afraid of civil unrest and the number of guns that had returned home with veterans of the Great War, Parliament in 1920 put a similar requirement on all Canadians. When it seemed that the radicalism of 1919 had passed by 1921, Parliament relaxed the permit requirements on the long guns of British subjects, but kept the policies regarding aliens.

Change came again in the early 1930s with more stringent guidelines for issuing gun permits, as well as mandatory minimum sentences for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. Fearful of the unrest the Depression could unleash, Parliament created the nation’s first gun registry in 1935.
The registry was eventually centralized under the RCMP in 1951 and modified in 1969 to require separate registration certificates for each restricted weapon. The late 1960s also saw the creation of the legal categories of “firearm,” “restricted weapon,” and “prohibited weapon” to accompany the changes in registration requirements.
Prohibitions on fully automatic weapons came into effect under Bill C-51 in 1977, as well as screening for Firearms Acquisition Certificates, and requirements for Firearms and Ammunition Business Permits. Bill C-51 was a compromise bill after gun owners (almost exclusively men) pushed back against the attempt to pass Bill C-83 in 1976—a response to rising rates of violent crime and gun-related murders, and two school shootings in Brampton and Ottawa, Ontario. Although the prohibition on fully automatic weapons remained from the bill’s original incarnation, restrictions like requiring two personal letters of reference when applying for a firearms license were dropped.
Under current Canadian law, most handguns are classified as “restricted firearms” and handgun owners must obtain a federal firearms license, a registration certificate, and Authorization to Transport if the gun is to be moved to a new location. Concealed carry permits are rare and hard to obtain, though in recent years applications have been on the rise.
But, as Global News reports, citing the increase in concealed carry permit applications from British Columbia, Alberta, and the Arctic, the recent spike is “likely driven by demand among people who work in the bush and want portable protection against wildlife.”

https://origins.osu.edu/article/good...tent_entity=en

[willin woodworks]

Kinda feels like the SCOTUS and particularly Thomas and the newly appointed justices are being as petty and blatantly antagonistic as the GOP that installed them. I cant help thinking that this is some sick kind of payback; an "Owning the Libs" move. The potential overturning of Roe feels very much the same.

This is not an apolitical court by any stretch of the imagination.

[Decourcy]

^ You are mistaken. Canada’s gun controls are substantially stronger than in the U.S. Your memory about buying an automatic weapon is either faulty, or recalls how things were 45 years ago.

The U.S. is an outlier in least restrictive laws, most guns per capita, and most gun deaths per capita. It’s the guns, period.

He’s not wrong. The only thing he shouldn’t have done is use “assault rifle” in the modern, inaccurate way. But that’s the way it’s been used in this forum so who could blame him. What do you, after all, call an AR-15 or similar? Probably assault rifle. Your (to use the more accurate name) semi auto rifles aren’t (in almost every case) full auto either.


I’ve got multiple “assault rifles” in my safe, purchased with no record keeping by government. Also several thousand rounds of ammo for each (other than for the 300 blackout. Ammo for it isn’t cheap…). They did, however, cost me somewhat more than $450 each.


The difference is the license that I have and maintain. The process for getting it is a huge filter for nuts.

[Jim Mahan]

I’ve got multiple “assault rifles” in my safe, purchased with no record keeping by government. Also several thousand rounds of ammo for each...

Why?

[bluedog225]

Facts matter. Here are some data points.

These are the rankings:

64F840C1-8836-43D9-BFA9-1E7F4D394C58.jpg

We own a lot of guns.

D235E06A-8EC9-4778-AD6B-27A6721B2205.jpg

Some places are safer. The wild west fears didn’t pan out.

399DE30D-3491-4310-B1E3-138FAF10874D.jpg