advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 09:14AM
They have gutted the Miranda ruling. So forget that one.

Voting rights. What's that? GOP lawmakers can go around the state AG to defend voter ID laws, eve nwjen the AG is already doing that. (North Carolina case)

SCOTUS blog hard to access today due to heavy traffic but their twitter feed is good.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 09:16AM
NY 2A case
6-3 decision by Thomas strikes down NY handgun law that was 100 years old.



Bottom line, this will make it easier to concealed carry. Police hate it.

This decision will put most gun laws up for court battles, as I understand it. This is the last thing our country needed right now. Defies common sense on safety.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 09:31AM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 09:29AM
And ironically, these people who are not worried at all about the safety of the public just got themselves more taxpayer funded security.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 09:32AM
This ruling is out of touch with the American people, who clearly want more, not less, regulation of guns.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 09:54AM
Their methodology on the New York is frankly bizarre. They say "history" should be the foundation for deciding gun cases. Like 18th century or even earlier.

Try to guess what the Framers would have thought about people walking around with AR-15s with no license or training.

That is what Clarence Thomas thinks makes sense.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Acer
Date: June 23, 2022 10:02AM
I'm guessing the dissents are going to be real scorchers.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Sam3
Date: June 23, 2022 10:09AM
Didn't appear here, but a couple of days ago SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that Maine has to give taxpayer money to private religious schools as well.

[courtroomstrategy.com]



The arts are not luxuries but assets that give way more than they cost.
--Ronald Tucker on YouTube

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
--Frank Zappa
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: June 23, 2022 10:12AM
In case anyone wants to read the actual source material instead of media interpretations of what it says, here it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: mattkime
Date: June 23, 2022 10:34AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Their methodology on the New York is frankly bizarre. They say "history" should be the foundation for deciding gun cases. Like 18th century or even earlier.

I've been listening to the [www.fivefourpod.com] back catalog and every time a justice starts digging through history to justify their ruling they basically say "buckle up, we're about to be taken for a ride!" - they selectively hunt through history to find what confirms their ideas and ignore what doesn't.

Why would a 100 year old law suddenly be unconstitutional? Hm, could something have changed outside of the law?

Its a notable feature of conservative reasoning that is largely lacking in liberal reasoning - because it makes zero @#$%& sense.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 11:05AM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Lemon Drop
Their methodology on the New York is frankly bizarre. They say "history" should be the foundation for deciding gun cases. Like 18th century or even earlier.

I've been listening to the [www.fivefourpod.com] back catalog and every time a justice starts digging through history to justify their ruling they basically say "buckle up, we're about to be taken for a ride!" - they selectively hunt through history to find what confirms their ideas and ignore what doesn't.

Why would a 100 year old law suddenly be unconstitutional? Hm, could something have changed outside of the law?

Its a notable feature of conservative reasoning that is largely lacking in liberal reasoning - because it makes zero @#$%& sense.

This is a court majority with a very illiberal vision of our country. Not meaning their personal political views, but rather a view that ignores our nation's legal traditions and precedents and is fundamentalist, puritanical, and narrow-minded.

Socially and culturally for our country, it feels apocalyptic.

The good news: the Court has no enforcement mechanism for their decisions. When they issue a ruling that nearly 80% of the residents in the state concerned oppose, the will of those people and their wise leaders will prevail.
Though not without enduring a lot of needless mess in the process.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 11:07AM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: mattkime
Date: June 23, 2022 11:40AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
This is a court majority with a very illiberal vision of our country. Not meaning their personal political views, but rather a view that ignores our nation's legal traditions and precedents and is fundamentalist, puritanical, and narrow-minded.

Its a bit more nuanced than that but its very clear that the supreme court has six members that come from a very different cultural and intellectual space than a lot of us do. There's nothing particularly unusual about this but its about to impact people more directly than it has in the past.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: testcase
Date: June 23, 2022 11:44AM
“Bottom line, this will make it easier to concealed carry. Police hate it‘

A blanket statement that is patently FALSE. I personally know many “street cops” who are NOT “anti-Gun”. The higher a LEO moves “up the chain”, the more he has to act like a politician. A simple matter of “political expedience” over what’s right. SCOTUS has finally addressed & corrected prior abuse by people who were SUPPOSED to have know better.




“ Why would a 100 year old law suddenly be unconstitutional? Hm, could something have changed outside of the law?”

Because it WAS unconstitutional when first enacted BUT, for any one of a variety of reasons, was NOT challenged at the time. WHEN challenged IN THE PROPER COURT, such bad legislation often meets its’ “demise”.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 23, 2022 12:10PM
Quote
testcase
“Bottom line, this will make it easier to concealed carry. Police hate it‘

A blanket statement that is patently FALSE. I personally know many “street cops” who are NOT “anti-Gun”.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

Are those who are opposed to "concealed carry" homogeneous with "anti-gun"?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Ted King
Date: June 23, 2022 12:14PM
Quote
testcase

Because it WAS unconstitutional when first enacted BUT, for any one of a variety of reasons, was NOT challenged at the time. WHEN challenged IN THE PROPER COURT, such bad legislation often meets its’ “demise”.

More likely, people who didn't like the law knew that if they challenged it in many previous courts, it would have been upheld as Constitutional so they waited until there was a court that would likely find it unConstitutional to challenge it.



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 12:26PM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Lemon Drop
This is a court majority with a very illiberal vision of our country. Not meaning their personal political views, but rather a view that ignores our nation's legal traditions and precedents and is fundamentalist, puritanical, and narrow-minded.

Its a bit more nuanced than that but its very clear that the supreme court has six members that come from a very different cultural and intellectual space than a lot of us do. There's nothing particularly unusual about this but its about to impact people more directly than it has in the past.

The legal reasoning used to reach this decision is shockingly unusual. They have used a 20 year period from 300 years ago, in another country, to justify a 21st American legal decision.

You don't have to get into their personal beliefs, their work product is dangerous crap.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: June 23, 2022 01:40PM
I know MY pockets will be loaded if anyone disrespects me on the subway..


crowded subways dictate 'close-up' justice
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: mattkime
Date: June 23, 2022 02:05PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
The legal reasoning used to reach this decision is shockingly unusual. They have used a 20 year period from 300 years ago, in another country, to justify a 21st American legal decision.

Its only shocking if you're new to SCOTUS rationale.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 02:31PM
concealed permit laws in the 50 states fall into 2 categories. may issue, and shall issue.

In Washington State, for example, we are a Shall Issue state. They must issue a permit unless the State can prove you are legally disqualified from having the permit. They do an extensive background check, and if you are clear, you get one. Seems pretty reasonable.

In other states, like New York, they are a May Issue. You are required to show Need. And the State decides if you get to exercise your Right. There is no clear cut criteria for valid Need in the case of New York. A clerk can decide No just because they don't like your looks, or because the State AG or the mayor in your jurisdiction says we don't believe in them anymore. The only 2 states who operate this way are California and New York to the best of my knowledge. There are no defined and published criteria as to what Needs are included, and which are Denied. Outside of NYC, it is easier to get a permit, but all but impossible in NYC. And I presume you need to apply in the city/county where you reside like here in Washington. So, in effect, if you live in NYC, your rights are less.

Other May Issue states don't operate this way.

this is my take on the subject. This was the outcome I expected weeks, or maybe over a month ago. 6-3

NYC made this happen because they were not consistent with the rest of the state.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 02:34PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: mattkime
Date: June 23, 2022 02:40PM
Quote
Racer X
NYC made this happen because they were not consistent with the rest of the state.

heh...ah...imagine, a large, dense city having different rules for gun ownership than rural places. just crazy, isn't it?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 23, 2022 02:42PM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Racer X
NYC made this happen because they were not consistent with the rest of the state.

heh...ah...imagine, a large, dense city having different rules for gun ownership than rural places. just crazy, isn't it?


..and a law that stood for over a century became no law due to the politics of the highest court in the land.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 02:45PM
I believe there are 9 "may issue " states.

With this ruling, expect more death.

"Historically, almost every state prohibited or strictly limited the carrying of concealed, loaded weapons in public places. These restrictions were among the earliest gun laws adopted in the United States.

In the late 20th century, some states began to grant law enforcement discretion to issue permits (often called “CCW” or carrying a concealed weapon permits) to people who passed a background check and received firearm safety training and/or demonstrated a particular need to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. At the behest of the gun lobby, however, many states have in recent years substantially weakened standards for qualifying for these permits—and 21 states have now eliminated these protections entirely.

These changes have enormously expanded the number of people who are authorized to carry hidden, loaded handguns in public streets, crowds, and spaces, and also often significantly increased the number of public locations in which the public may carry firearms, including public parks and schools, college campuses, hospitals, government buildings, bars, and many others.

Researchers estimated in 2015 that 9 million US adults carry loaded handguns monthly,1 and that 3 million carry loaded handguns every day.2Proportionally fewer people carry concealed loaded handguns in states that have strong concealed carry permitting standards.3

Many people may be surprised to learn just how lax many states’ standards are. In 2020, a member of the US Commission on Civil rights expressed alarm that weak public carry laws like the state of Florida’s still allowed the man who murdered Trayvon Martin to possess and carry loaded concealed firearms in public, despite his history of domestic violence and assaulting a police officer, killing Trayvon Martin, and then subsequently being convicted of criminally stalking someone else.4

 Of the 21 states that now authorize people to carry concealed handguns in public without a permit or background check required, all but one also allow people to purchase handguns without a background check too, meaning that the residents of 20 states are generally able to purchase and carry concealed weapons designed to take human life in most public spaces without ever passing any background check whatsoever, or ever receiving any safety training or information about safe and responsible handling of firearms.

Guns carried in public pose a substantial threat to public safety. A robust body of academic literature shows that when more people carry guns in public, violent crime increases.

The most comprehensive and rigorous study of concealed carry laws found that in states with weak permitting laws, violent crime rates were 13% to 15% higher than predicted had such laws not been in place.5Weak concealed-carry permitting laws are also associated with 11% higher rates of homicide committed with handguns compared with states with stronger permitting systems.6

There is also some evidence that lax concealed carry laws increase other undesirable outcomes, including..."

[giffords.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 02:47PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 02:46PM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Racer X
NYC made this happen because they were not consistent with the rest of the state.

heh...ah...imagine, a large, dense city having different rules for gun ownership than rural places. just crazy, isn't it?

but they are not legally allowed to apply STATE laws differently. Rather than change state law, they bent the hell out of it for their own reasons, good or not is irrelevant.

It has been decided.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 02:50PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 02:48PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
I believe there are 9 "may issue " states.

With this ruling, expect more death.

"Historically, almost every state prohibited or strictly limited the carrying of concealed, loaded weapons in public places. These restrictions were among the earliest gun laws adopted in the United States.

In the late 20th century, some states began to grant law enforcement discretion to issue permits (often called “CCW” or carrying a concealed weapon permits) to people who passed a background check and received firearm safety training and/or demonstrated a particular need to carry hidden, loaded guns in public. At the behest of the gun lobby, however, many states have in recent years substantially weakened standards for qualifying for these permits—and 21 states have now eliminated these protections entirely.

These changes have enormously expanded the number of people who are authorized to carry hidden, loaded handguns in public streets, crowds, and spaces, and also often significantly increased the number of public locations in which the public may carry firearms, including public parks and schools, college campuses, hospitals, government buildings, bars, and many others.

Researchers estimated in 2015 that 9 million US adults carry loaded handguns monthly,1 and that 3 million carry loaded handguns every day.2Proportionally fewer people carry concealed loaded handguns in states that have strong concealed carry permitting standards.3

Many people may be surprised to learn just how lax many states’ standards are. In 2020, a member of the US Commission on Civil rights expressed alarm that weak public carry laws like the state of Florida’s still allowed the man who murdered Trayvon Martin to possess and carry loaded concealed firearms in public, despite his history of domestic violence and assaulting a police officer, killing Trayvon Martin, and then subsequently being convicted of criminally stalking someone else.4

 Of the 21 states that now authorize people to carry concealed handguns in public without a permit or background check required, all but one also allow people to purchase handguns without a background check too, meaning that the residents of 20 states are generally able to purchase and carry concealed weapons designed to take human life in most public spaces without ever passing any background check whatsoever, or ever receiving any safety training or information about safe and responsible handling of firearms.

Guns carried in public pose a substantial threat to public safety. A robust body of academic literature shows that when more people carry guns in public, violent crime increases.

The most comprehensive and rigorous study of concealed carry laws found that in states with weak permitting laws, violent crime rates were 13% to 15% higher than predicted had such laws not been in place.5Weak concealed-carry permitting laws are also associated with 11% higher rates of homicide committed with handguns compared with states with stronger permitting systems.6

There is also some evidence that lax concealed carry laws increase other undesirable outcomes, including..."

[giffords.org]

It's been decided.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 23, 2022 02:52PM
It's been decided.

Roe was also decided (check back tomorrow).
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 02:58PM
I'm well aware that "its been decided."

I'm sharing the evidence this court wants all courts to ignore. That more guns in public means more death.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 02:58PM
Quote
RgrF
It's been decided.

Roe was also decided (check back tomorrow).

yes, and the Constitution has been Amended too.

If enough voters, in enough states disagree, then they can Amend the Constitution and make a Supreme Court ruling moot.

There are checks and balances in place. It is an imperfect system, but billions, I am sure, wish they have what we do.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 03:02PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm well aware that "its been decided."

I'm sharing the evidence this court wants all courts to ignore. That more guns in public means more death.

the Supreme Court can't operate that way. Their rulings are based on law, not on statistics.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 03:09PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm well aware that "its been decided."

I'm sharing the evidence this court wants all courts to ignore. That more guns in public means more death.

the Supreme Court can't operate that way. Their rulings are based on law, not on statistics.


The court has for many decades let lower court rulings upholding gun control laws stand. Those rulings very much considered the government's interest in keeping citizens safe and alive.

It is unprecedented that today's ruling rejects that interest, contrary to a century of previous rulings. They rejected public safety in favor of a review of temporary social situations in 18th century England.

This is a corrupt, politically biased decision that in fact has no basis in American legal history.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 23, 2022 03:15PM
Quote
Racer X
the Supreme Court can't operate that way. Their rulings are based on law, not on statistics.

Their rulings are based on INTERPRETATIONS of laws.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 03:22PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
the Supreme Court can't operate that way. Their rulings are based on law, not on statistics.

Their rulings are based on INTERPRETATIONS of laws.

of course. and NYC was applying their interpretation of NY state law and filtering it through the wishes of the politicians, which was different than the rest of the state. And here we are.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 04:28PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
the Supreme Court can't operate that way. Their rulings are based on law, not on statistics.

Their rulings are based on INTERPRETATIONS of laws.

of course. and NYC was applying their interpretation of NY state law and filtering it through the wishes of the politicians, which was different th

an the rest of the state. And here we are.

This is a goofy take on this case. The plaintiffs do not live in New York City. They live in Renneslaer, which is up by Albany.
Their applications for concealed carry permits were denied because they could not prove a special need for self defense.

They are members of a gun rights group that was also a plaintiff.
They lost in every state and federal court but continued to this gunner SCOTUS we have now, which issued this insane ruling.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Spock
Date: June 23, 2022 04:51PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
RgrF
It's been decided.

Roe was also decided (check back tomorrow).

yes, and the Constitution has been Amended too.

If enough voters, in enough states disagree, then they can Amend the Constitution and make a Supreme Court ruling moot.

There are checks and balances in place. It is an imperfect system, but billions, I am sure, wish they have what we do.

Time to repeal the 2nd amendment.



Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: macphanatic
Date: June 23, 2022 04:58PM
The issue in NYC and State was that privileged people or those with connections got permits. And NYC did its very best to make it impossible for law abiding people who LEGALLY owned firearms to transport them.

NJ has the same issue.

Maybe the solution is to hold everyone accountable for bad behavior. Commit a crime with a weapon, any weapon, and be punished accordingly. Commit a second violent crime and earn a one way ticket to jail forever.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 23, 2022 05:31PM
Because "locking them up and throwing away the key" has worked so well in the past?

The war on drugs screwed any hope we ever had of establishing a system of just punishment to fit the crime we once aspired to implement; today we don't even pretend that's a goal.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: June 23, 2022 05:51PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
They have gutted the Miranda ruling. So forget that one.

Voting rights. What's that? GOP lawmakers can go around the state AG to defend voter ID laws, eve nwjen the AG is already doing that. (North Carolina case)

SCOTUS blog hard to access today due to heavy traffic but their twitter feed is good.

They threw away the 4th Amendment. No warrant or probable cause required for repeated trespassing, months of harassment, forced entry and a violent attack by a federal agent acting outside the scope of his employment and without authorization by his superiors.

They had to throw away decades of precedent and a bunch of SCOTUS decisions to do it.

Funny how easily they do that these days.

[www.thenorthernlight.com]
[news.yahoo.com]
[en.wikipedia.org]



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 06:10PM
Quote
macphanatic
The issue in NYC and State was that privileged people or those with connections got permits. And NYC did its very best to make it impossible for law abiding people who LEGALLY owned firearms to transport them.

NJ has the same issue.

Maybe the solution is to hold everyone accountable for bad behavior. Commit a crime with a weapon, any weapon, and be punished accordingly. Commit a second violent crime and earn a one way ticket to jail forever.

what a novel concept. it is almost as if bad behavior will have negative consequences.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 06:12PM
Quote
Spock
Quote
Racer X
Quote
RgrF
It's been decided.

Roe was also decided (check back tomorrow).

yes, and the Constitution has been Amended too.

If enough voters, in enough states disagree, then they can Amend the Constitution and make a Supreme Court ruling moot.

There are checks and balances in place. It is an imperfect system, but billions, I am sure, wish they have what we do.

Time to repeal the 2nd amendment.

if enough people in enough states want it, it will happen.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: jonny
Date: June 23, 2022 06:15PM
‘I’m My Own Militia!’
-sung to the tune of I’m My Own Grandpa.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 06:20PM
the issue is law abiding citizens wanted permits, and were denied.

this won't effect criminals, because they weren't applying for permits, were they? If they have a record, they wouldn't have been issued one even under the old way of doing business. The fact that they couldn't posses a firearm in the first place, and carry it concealed illegally, which is 2 crimes, even just walking down the street, eating a soft pretzel. They will still be doing the same thing tomorrow. That won't change.

New Yorkers just get the same opportunities to apply as the other states.

Unless you feel they are somehow less than, say, someone in Washington, where we are Shall Issue?



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: jonny
Date: June 23, 2022 06:50PM
Quote
Racer X
the issue is law abiding citizens wanted permits, and were denied.

this won't effect criminals, because they weren't applying for permits, were they? If they have a record, they wouldn't have been issued one even under the old way of doing business. The fact that they couldn't posses a firearm in the first place, and carry it concealed illegally, which is 2 crimes, even just walking down the street, eating a soft pretzel. They will still be doing the same thing tomorrow. That won't change.

New Yorkers just get the same opportunities to apply as the other states.

Unless you feel they are somehow less than, say, someone in Washington, where we are Shall Issue?

Except I don't feel safer knowing the supposed law-abiding citizen standing next to me is packing. In fact, I feel quite unsafe.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 23, 2022 06:51PM
Racer,

Why do you think 80% of New York residents wanted the law left as it was? They definitely do not want to be like the slacker gunner states. Their gun responsibility laws save lives and they know it.

You talk as tho everybody wants yo be a gunner. Most of us do not.

PS: WA is not a slacker state. There are some decent laws there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2022 06:53PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 23, 2022 06:54PM
Quote
Racer X
the issue is law abiding citizens wanted permits, and were denied.

What percentage of shooters were "law abiding citizens" BEFORE they shot someone?

"It's always the other guy, not ME!"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: jonny
Date: June 23, 2022 06:58PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Racer X
the issue is law abiding citizens wanted permits, and were denied.

What percentage of shooters were "law abiding citizens" BEFORE they shot someone?

"It's always the other guy, not ME!"

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 23, 2022 07:14PM
While you may care about public safety and protecting innocents, gun fanatics DON'T.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: bfd
Date: June 23, 2022 08:03PM
Quote
RgrF
While you may care about public safety and protecting innocents, gun fanatics DON'T.

Of course not, they have their guns. Starting to feel like if you can't beat 'em, join 'em
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 23, 2022 08:28PM
Quote
bfd
Starting to feel like if you can't beat 'em, join 'em

JUST what the gun makers and dealers want to hear! emoticon_love
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: Racer X
Date: June 23, 2022 08:36PM
NY State officials could have changed their behavior. A clear and concise universal set of criteria. They chose not to. Today was the result.



********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 23, 2022 08:53PM
BTW, here’s some more recently compiled data regarding the frequently made assumption that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

An informative graphic from same:



Quote

[In this analysis], there were at least 433 active shooter attacks — in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place — in the United States from 2000 to 2021. The country experienced an average of more than one a week in 2021 alone.

The data comes from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, whose researchers work with the F.B.I. to catalog and examine these attacks. Unlike mass shooting tallies that count a minimum number of people shot or killed, the active attack data includes episodes with fewer casualties, but researchers exclude domestic shootings and gang-related attacks.

So. Out of 433 active shooter incidents, 12 were stopped by an armed citizen. That’s less than 3%. Far less, in fact, than unarmed citizens subduing the attacker without shooting.

Other tidbits: in this study, the average time to police response to the active shooting was 3 minutes. And they were considerably more successful in ending the attack than bystanders (huh. Wonder why?), and waaaaay more successful than armed bystanders.

And not reflected in this data: when shooting erupts between a “good guy” and a “bad guy”, how do subsequent responders know which is which?

Quote

In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colo., was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.

In sum:

Quote

… “It’s direct, indisputable, empirical evidence that this kind of common claim that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with the gun is a good guy with the gun’ is wrong,” said Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama, who has studied mass shootings for more than a decade. “It’s demonstrably false”

“The actual data show that some of these kind of heroic, Hollywood moments of armed citizens taking out active shooters are just extraordinarily rare,” Mr. Lankford said.

Perhaps the SCOTUS’s new “experiment” in NY will tell the tale - assuming the NRA doesn’t try to block the data collection.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 23, 2022 08:53PM
Quote
Racer X
NY State officials could have changed their behavior. A clear and concise universal set of criteria. They chose not to. Today was the result.

Not at all. Today is the result of court gerrymandering.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Just following what rights we have left. SCOTUS opinions. NY 2A case out too
Posted by: pdq
Date: June 23, 2022 09:23PM
PPS- George Will (yes, crusty old uber-conservative George Will!) says the SCOTUS ruling today is a “serious” mistake:

Quote

The Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a preamble: “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.” The amendment was 217 years old before the court held that it protected the gun rights of individuals, irrespective of membership in a militia.

…[Yet Clarence] Thomas, in his 63-page opinion…found no “American tradition” that could justify New York’s “proper-cause requirement.”

Legal precedence? We don’t need no stinkin legal precedence!

Quote

… in an amicus brief supporting New York, former federal appellate judge (on the 4th Circuit) J. Michael Luttig [yeah, that Michael Luttig] demonstrated that, regarding the public carrying of loaded guns, there is an American tradition even older than the nation of striking a “delicate balance between the Second Amendment’s twin concerns for self-defense and public safety.”

The court’s ruling, however, does not treat those as…equal concerns.

Indeed, it treats the second, public safety, as irrelevant to the framers: This concern was unnecessary to consider because the first concern, self-defense, was sufficient justification for the amendment. On Thursday, the court effectively removed from public debate the essentially legislative choice of balancing the competing values of self-defense and public safety.

So much for “local control”. RollingEyesSmiley5

Quote

In 1897, the Supreme Court had said it was “well-recognized” that the right to “bear” arms “is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Today, most states, including almost all that filed briefs supporting New York, have multiple restrictions forbidding concealed carry at schools, government buildings, bars, amusement parks, churches, athletic events, polling places, etc. On Thursday, the court perhaps did not invalidate most such restrictions [ I disagree- it puts all of these in doubt ] but it condemned itself to years of judicial hairsplitting in search of a principle about balancing judgments.

… America the beautiful is today America the irritable, where road rage, unruly airline passengers and political violence - a protective fence [now] surrounds the [Supreme] court [ why do they alone get to limit weapons? ] - reveal a nation of short fuses and long-simmering resentments.

Guns are out of control and waaay beyond any semblance of precedence.

This SCOTUS is out of control and waaay beyond any semblance of precedence.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 84
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020