Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,871 Posts
For those of us not quite as tuned in as GMI

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”​
In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public. The justices said the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”​
California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws likely to be challenged as a result of the ruling.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,851 Posts
Some of Sam Alito's response to the dissent-

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? (Pg 71 of the PDF)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,871 Posts
Some of Sam Alito's response to the dissent-

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? (Pg 71 of the PDF)
Smart guy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,851 Posts
Just following up while reading through the ruling, the black robes struck down the 2 step process courts have been using. By leaving just a single step, it seems that in the future it will be hard to say most regulations don't violate the second amendment after applying the new and improved single step. I'll sit quietly and watch for someone in a blue state to sue for charging high fees and no reciprocity.

Hopefully those who are antigun won't be out peacefully protesting guns stores tonight with bricks and fireball cocktails. Gun store owners are peaceful folks too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,588 Posts
So, minds might wonder that if the 14th Ammendment secures the right for an individual to carry outside of the home, what would be the point of a permit again?
I doubt that law has ever been challenged. I can't think of a reason a person with a permit would be arrested for carrying, so it is unlikely a case has come up to challenge the permit law. The constitutional reasons given by the court today would certainly seem to apply to permits too if a case ever came up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,851 Posts
I doubt that law has ever been challenged. I can't think of a reason a person with a permit would be arrested for carrying, so it is unlikely a case has come up to challenge the permit law. The constitutional reasons given by the court today would certainly seem to apply to permits too if a case ever came up.
I only watch lawyers on tv, but it seems ie Illinois charging $150 for a permission slip seems a little restrictive on the po working folk who are just getting by and would like the ability to sleep safely and securely at night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,588 Posts
I only watch lawyers on tv, but it seems ie Illinois charging $150 for a permission slip seems a little restrictive on the po working folk who are just getting by and would like the ability to sleep safely and securely at night.
Yes, it is expensive and I'm not sure if it has been challenged in court yet. Illinois still has the FOID (firearm owners ID card) requirement to even possess a gun at any time, including at home. I think a challenge to that has been in the court system for a few years already. I think Illinois realizes they will lose on that eventually. That one is only something like $5 or $10 every 5 years but still should not exist. This year they did start providing them free to anyone with a carry permit. I suspect the courts will end it eventually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,871 Posts
Burning, looting and violence makes a lot of noise but doesn't mean it was made by a lot of people.
81 million strong. Support by GOs and NGOs alike. The darlings of the media and Hollywood. Well funded and full of energy.

Never underestimate the opposition
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top