Supreme Court expands gun rights in major decision

[Moonbeam]

Can’t say I don’t think the New York wad declared unconstitutional wasn’t unconstitutional. Your opinion.

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

 

[fskimospy]

More Calvinball, with more Calvinball to come.

Apparently essentially all concealed carry restrictions are now unconstitutional AND the opinion strongly suggests that states may not use empirical evidence to regulate guns but instead have to ask themselves if such a restriction is part of the 'historical tradition'.

So essentially from this point forward on guns facts don't matter, it's just a contest of people cracking open history books where judges decide to strike down or uphold any law they feel like based on their personal interpretation of history.

 

[K1052]

So essentially from this point forward on guns facts don't matter, it's just a contest of people cracking open history books where judges decide to strike down or uphold any law they feel like based on their personal interpretation of history.

The law as just the vibes of a pool of conservative judges really is the place where we're at now.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Just to make sure I'm getting this right... It's not up to the states to decide on guns.... but we expect likely tomorrow for them to stay it's up to the states to decide on abortion.

 

[Pens1566]

Just to make sure I'm getting this right... It's not up to the states to decide on guns.... but we expect likely tomorrow for them to stay it's up to the states to decide on abortion.

Well now it'll be easier for them to gun down abortion providers in states that still allow it.

Check mate, lib-tards!

 

[fskimospy]

Just to make sure I'm getting this right... It's not up to the states to decide on guns.... but we expect likely tomorrow for them to stay it's up to the states to decide on abortion.

As far as I can tell the overarching position is that the Constitution's protections are defined by whatever people generally thought in 1789 and thanks to the fog of history and incredibly varied opinions in any society at any time that basically means 'make up whatever you want and then mine a history book for a justification'.

 

[Moonbeam]

More Calvinball, with more Calvinball to come.

Apparently essentially all concealed carry restrictions are now unconstitutional AND the opinion strongly suggests that states may not use empirical evidence to regulate guns but instead have to ask themselves if such a restriction is part of the 'historical tradition'.

So essentially from this point forward on guns facts don't matter, it's just a contest of people cracking open history books where judges decide to strike down or uphold any law they feel like based on their personal interpretation of history.

Seems right actually, but decisions have to be based on something and it seems also to me that your view of historical gun regulations would include your opinion of how constitutional those laws were. If your view that a century old law prohibiting carrying a weapon outside the house was basically unconstitutional when it passed and outside the historical traditions of most of the country, that would be your historical view.

Not all gun laws were overturned here. New York law and in eight other states restricted the will of its law abiding citizens to carry for for self defense. It’s not a surprise in my opinion the law was challenged and defeated by conservative thinkers. Self defense and the survival instinct creates its own special form of rational thinking. It’s better to be armed against the insanity of some than for only sane people not to be armed. Any who do not wish to carry don’t have to but they can’t impose the wish of that tyranny on others.

 

[Paratus]

The law as just the vibes of a pool of conservative judges really is the place where we're at now.

As far as I can tell the overarching position is that the Constitution's protections are defined by whatever people generally thought in 1789 and thanks to the fog of history and incredibly varied opinions in any society at any time that basically means 'make up whatever you want and then mine a history book for a justification'.

I have feeling that SCOTUS would judge that history shows that open & concealed carry of arms is perfectly legal everywhere except where supreme court justices live.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well now it'll be easier for them to gun down abortion providers in states that still allow it.

Check mate, lib-tards!

People intent on gunning down anybody did not do so because it was illegal for them to carry a gun. The penalty for carrying one illegally was not as great as the penalty for murder.

 

[K1052]

What's the point of having laws if they don't prevent everything bad a judge on the highest court in the land muses.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1539980793963053056

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What's the point of having laws if they don't prevent everything bad a judge on the highest court in the land muses.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1539980793963053056

May as well just dump all laws that have ever been broken. Jesus fuck it's like writing judicial opinions via facebook comments. If they weren't so fucking old I'd assume they were trolling us.

 

[KB]

The problem was New York's "proper cause", which was just another term for insider connections. Unless you greased the right palms and knew the right people you could not get the permit. And in some rural counties it was said to be racially motivated, only whites could get the permit.
I imagine they can still make some restrictions, but will hopefully have to be more fair about it. I also believe that this doesn't allow concealed carry in private locations. Businesses can still forbid them.

I tell you what though. Thomas should never write a SC opinion. His views are way too broad. This should have been a narrow victory case and he went for the fences.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have feeling that SCOTUS would judge that history shows that open & concealed carry of arms is perfectly legal everywhere except where supreme court justices live.

I think that open and concealed carry are different issues. Concealed carry allows for self protection without making others feel you may be carrying to relay an intentional threat. I would consider that rude.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems right actually, but decisions have to be based on something and it seems also to me that your view of historical gun regulations would include your opinion of how constitutional those laws were. If your view that a century old law prohibiting carrying a weapon outside the house was basically unconstitutional when it passed and outside the historical traditions of most of the country, that would be your historical view.

How would something present for nearly half the country's history not be part of our historical traditions? Amusingly enough concealed carry was banned in tons of states starting in the 1800's and by the 1950's was essentially banned nationwide.

So as you can see this is based on a judge basically making history say whatever he personally wants. It's based on nothing other than his personal preferences.

Not all gun laws were overturned here. New York law and in eight other states restricted the will of its law abiding citizens to carry for for self defense. It’s not a surprise in my opinion the law was challenged and defeated by conservative thinkers. Self defense and the survival instinct creates its own special form of rational thinking. It’s better to be armed against the insanity of some than for only sane people not to be armed. Any who do not wish to carry don’t have to but they can’t impose the wish of that tyranny on others.

The sort of rational thinking where empirical evidence shows owning something makes you less safe but you 'rationally' think it makes you more safe.

In effect, irrational wishcasting as a legal principle.

 

[eelw]

I have feeling that SCOTUS would judge that history shows that open & concealed carry of arms is perfectly legal everywhere except where supreme court justices live.

Yup. Rules for thee. Not for me.

 

[fskimospy]

I have feeling that SCOTUS would judge that history shows that open & concealed carry of arms is perfectly legal everywhere except where supreme court justices live.

I personally think the best way to have SCOTUS reconsider the scope of gun laws would be for the government to start distributing guns to black people en masse.

 

[MrSquished]

This country is going backwards faster than I could have imagined even two weeks ago when I thought it was pretty bad.

it's obviously the Republicans that are evil but christ, how many dems stayed home in 2016 instead of voting for Hilary. I mean I wanted Bernie but it was a turning point election. We could have stopped a lot of this back then

 

[fskimospy]

This country is going backwards faster than I could have imagined even two weeks ago when I thought it was pretty bad.

it's obviously the Republicans that are evil but christ, how many dems stayed home in 2016 instead of voting for Hilary. I mean I wanted Bernie but it was a turning point election. We could have stopped a lot of this back then

It did turn out that 2016 was the most important election of our lives, at least up to that point.

 

[K1052]

how many dems stayed home in 2016 instead of voting for Hilary. I mean I wanted Bernie but it was a turning point election. We could have stopped a lot of this back then

Yeah, if somebody stayed home instead of voting for Clinton and they're unhappy with how things are going I won't hesitate to tell them this is personally their fault.

Also anybody who voted Green can get fucked sideways.

 

[Pens1566]

This country is going backwards faster than I could have imagined even two weeks ago when I thought it was pretty bad.

it's obviously the Republicans that are evil but christ, how many dems stayed home in 2016 instead of voting for Hilary. I mean I wanted Bernie but it was a turning point election. We could have stopped a lot of this back then

It does seem to be gaining momentum ...

 

[pauldun170]

The problem was New York's "proper cause", which was just another term for insider connections. Unless you greased the right palms and knew the right people you could not get the permit. And in some rural counties it was said to be racially motivated, only whites could get the permit.
I imagine they can still make some restrictions, but will hopefully have to be more fair about it. I also believe that this doesn't allow concealed carry in private locations. Businesses can still forbid them.

I tell you what though. Thomas should never write a SC opinion. His views are way too broad. This should have been a narrow victory case and he went for the fences.

In my county, you needed to be friends with someone in the department or basically say "I'm a veteran" 3 times in a row to trigger a "thank you for your service. What branch, where did you serve and by the way "Approved".

In my county, a county with some one of the lowest crime rates in the country, the trigger for concealed carry is "I saw a black man walking in my neighborhood and I read a story on Facebook". The shootings we have are extremely rare and so far have been 99.9999999999% "gun owner mad at some guy over some stupid nonsense"

Trunmptards took away most of the appeal of this area back when they all went apeshit over a Black president and whatever Foxnews told them. The only comforting thing was that we at least didn't have the psychotic gun culture found in the rest of the country.

Fuck

 

[Moonbeam]

How would something present for nearly half the country's history not be part of our historical traditions? Amusingly enough concealed carry was banned in tons of states starting in the 1800's and by the 1950's was essentially banned nationwide.

So as you can see this is based on a judge basically making history say whatever he personally wants. It's based on nothing other than his personal preferences.

Like every law that gets passed and later ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't constitutional to begin with so the history is that historically we have had bad laws.

The sort of rational thinking where empirical evidence shows owning something makes you less safe but you 'rationally' think it makes you more safe.

In effect, irrational wishcasting as a legal principle.

I disagree. I know the empirical evidence and I know my personal situation. My reasoning says that I don't have to govern myself by statistical analysis that isn't based on people as scrupulously careful as I am. It is my analysis of my own risk I want to follow. What we need is a society that breeds conscientiousness, not somnambulism as a typical state of self destructiveness. In California to buy a gun you need to pass a gun law and safety test. Perhaps some form of national training in gun safety organization or gun safety militia should be created for requiring annual training for gun owners and supported on a federal level, a gun camp where you can earn badges, maybe run by the USMC.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I personally think the best way to have SCOTUS reconsider the scope of gun laws would be for the government to start distributing guns to black people en masse.

I don’t know about that. Just doing a quick Google search for articles in the past year, it looks like black people are buying more guns. let the gov’t distribute to everyone - why does it have to be just blacks? You and the ladies from The View have a similar opinion - if black people buy more guns, the conservatives will get scared and change gun laws. The only ones trying to change gun laws to be more restricted are the Dems.

I don’t consider myself far right so there are probably nut jobs on the right that will think to restrict laws if more black people buy them but I bet that would be the minority of Republicans. I am all for more gun ownership by black, Hispanic or asian.

Weiterleitungshinweis

edit: added link for The View

Weiterleitungshinweis

and no, I don’t usually check Newsweek but they seem to have the info for me when searching Google

 

[Brainonska511]

Yeah, if somebody stayed home instead of voting for Clinton and they're unhappy with how things are going I won't hesitate to tell them this is personally their fault.

Also anybody who voted Green can get fucked sideways.

"You can't threaten me with the supreme court"

"Blah is not motivating enough"

"Can't have a beer with blah"

It's like no one learned the lessons of 2000.

 

[fskimospy]

Like every law that gets passed and later ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't constitutional to begin with so the history is that historically we have had bad laws.

It was thought of as constitutional at the time and for nearly half of the country's history - that's why they were on the books across the country.

What you mean is that despite people considering it constitutional for nearly half our historical legacy someone TODAY decided it was unconstitutional the whole time so it no longer counts as part of our historical legacy. Therefore logically our 'historical legacy' is whatever someone today decides it is, which is no standard at all.

Pure Calvinball.

I disagree. I know the empirical evidence and I know my personal situation. My reasoning says that I don't have to govern myself by statistical analysis that isn't based on people as scrupulously careful as I am. It is my analysis of my own risk I want to follow. What we need is a society that breeds conscientiousness, not somnambulism as a typical state of self destructiveness. In California to buy a gun you need to pass a gun law and safety test. Perhaps some form of national training in gun safety organization or gun safety militia should be created for requiring annual training for gun owners and supported on a federal level, a gun camp where you can earn badges, maybe run by the USMC.

Since the Supreme Court is establishing this standard for the entire country and we know that people in the country as a whole are less safe for owning a gun, we therefore know that the average gun owner is not rationally assessing their risk.

So if you're looking for rationality then you agree with me.