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.

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.

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.

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”.

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”.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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]

Quote
RgrF
It's been decided.

Roe was also decided (check back tomorrow).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote
Racer X
the issue is law abiding citizens wanted permits, and were denied.

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!"

Quote
RgrF
While you may care about public safety and protecting innocents, gun fanatics DON'T.

Quote
bfd
Starting to feel like if you can't beat 'em, join 'em…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.