Supreme Court expands gun rights in major Second Amendment ruling

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,499
5,601
1,743
30
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
#1
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...-gun-rights-in-major-second-amendment-ruling/
The Supreme Court struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a handgun carry permit, marking the justices’ first major opinion on Second Amendment rights in more than a decade.
The decision to invalidate New York’s law throws into question the legality of similar restrictions in more than a half dozen other states that give licensing officials wide discretion over concealed carry permitting.
The ruling comes after recent mass shootings reignited a wrenching debate over how to balance a constitutional right to bear arms with Americans’ concerns for personal safety in a country with more than 390 million privately owned firearms.
The opinion builds on the court’s last major gun rights decision more than a decade ago. In a 2008 case called District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. The court in Heller noted that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited,” but left unanswered what restrictions are constitutionally allowed.
The second ammendment shall not be infringed.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,580
1,922
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#2
So, the answer is more guns to counter gun violence. Always have your gun with you to shoot back at mentally disturbed or evil people the moment they start firing away. The wild west never quite ended. In New York City, it is supposed to make crime go down from criminals not knowing who is armed.
 
Last edited:

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,371
4,206
1,743
#3
This is a huge win for gun rights advocates. I haven't read the full 135 page ruling, but this appears to establish that carrying a firearm in public is a constitutional right.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22066607/new-york-state-rifle-and-pistol-assn-inc-v-bruen.pdf
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,499
6,980
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#5
Ah man, does this mean they probably won't be down with the idea of making law abiding gun owners get liability insurance for their guns?
It's possible the opposite. I could see liability insurance falling under that "well regulated" part that 2A supporters seem to skim right past before planting their finger down on "shall not be infringed". I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but I can see it being considered if they just claimed that everyone has the right to carry.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,073
17,426
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#6
Just a couple of thoughts.

First this makes me less anxious about red flag laws thinking that this court will hold states accountable for abusing them. Of course any case on that would be a long way off and the makeup could change by then.

Speaking of the makeup of the court, if Hillary wins in 2016, this decision likely goes the other direction. Trump was and is a train wreck but I am thankful for this silver lining.

Legal question for the experts. The dissent opinion mentions that the majority didn't consider security implications or something along those lines. Should that even play into it? If something is constitutional then it's constitutional, whether it's dangerous or not, right?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,132
21,177
1,743
#7
Legal question for the experts. The dissent opinion mentions that the majority didn't consider security implications or something along those lines. Should that even play into it? If something is constitutional then it's constitutional, whether it's dangerous or not, right?
I would basically turn it around to say if a state action is unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional….no matter how safe and secure it makes us.

But basically, yeah….the question of whether or not it’s good public safety policy doesn’t properly factor into almost all constitutionality determinations.
 
Last edited:

naffigator

I am SuperKing!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 2, 2008
16,488
13,430
1,743
In a burnin' ring of fire.
#8
Ah man, does this mean they probably won't be down with the idea of making law abiding gun owners get liability insurance for their guns?
It does nothing to shut down that idea. What it mainly does is stop New York from arbitrarily allowing or disallowing gun ownership based on someone "proving" they have a need.