|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,345 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,345 Likes: 1 |
Biggest win ever for 2A rights at SCOTUS.
This will impact on AW bans and magazine bans. How? Iam not a lawyer ,how does conceal carry pistols law , affect AW bans and magazines?..not..being sarcastic Because it says the right to keep and bear is one of "ordinary citizens" and that the two-step method used by courts is wrong. ----------------------------------------- In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amend- ment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Consti- tution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is con- sistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm reg- ulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” [...] Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means- end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. Also: ------------------------------- In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means- end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The gov- ernment must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amend- ment’s “unqualified command.” --------------------------------- Additionally Thomas opines a lot on rejecting "intermediate scrutiny". Again not a lawyer and haven't read the whole thing but look like he's setting a strict scrutiny of only historical interpretation for ruling on laws against the 2nd. That's good news.
Last edited by Steve; 06/23/22.
Carpe' Scrotum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 1 |
Biggest win ever for 2A rights at SCOTUS.
This will impact on AW bans and magazine bans. How? Iam not a lawyer ,how does conceal carry pistols law , affect AW bans and magazines?..not..being sarcastic The ruling affirms that RKBA applies outside the home. All things necessary to a right are as protected as the right. So the ruling probably works against magazine laws and possibly red flag laws. An AWB is already unconstitutional under Heller. Legislatures have gotten away with citing "it's for the public good" as the basis for restricting a right. That approach is now off the table.
Last edited by denton; 06/23/22.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,121
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,121 |
Biggest win ever for 2A rights at SCOTUS.
This will impact on AW bans and magazine bans. How? Iam not a lawyer ,how does conceal carry pistols law , affect AW bans and magazines?..not..being sarcastic What Steve said above. Here is another part of the Decision. The term "in common usage" applies to semi auto detachable mag fed rifles and standard to large capacity mags. (1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the
Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no
party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for
self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding
also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and
Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for
self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a
home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and
confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.
Last edited by JohnBurns; 06/23/22.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,345 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 18,345 Likes: 1 |
Also looks like they rejected means-ends in justifying a law. In other words if government as a 'good' reason for the law then it would be legal. Thomas and Alito both reject that whole hand. Only the history when the 2nd was ratified and the plain text of the ammendment is to be used.
Carpe' Scrotum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040 |
Today will forever be known as the day NY f'ed around and found out.
Last edited by ar15a292f; 06/23/22.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,121
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,121 |
Looks like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret concured in full but also wrote additional concurring opinions. Roberts concurred with Kavanaugh. From Kavanaugh this looks like a direct shot to any state without a shall issue CCW. Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shallissue States. Trump beating the Hildabeast and getting those appointments saved the 2nd A. Cocaine Mitch, love him or hate him, gets a bit of credit. He seems to be screwing up right now but this decision is a big step forward in defeating Red Flag Laws.
Last edited by JohnBurns; 06/23/22.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274 |
I'm still reading the opinion but overall, it seems to be a massive victory for the 2A. In Heller, Scalia (who is my hero) made a mistake in using squishy language about the limitations that can be applied to the Second Amendment. He referred to laws that ban M-16s as being acceptable, which the left took to mean anything that resembles an M-16, and he didn't clearly establish the standard of review for gun laws that impact Second Amendment rights. As a result, lower courts began employing a two part test for gun laws...essentially, they first asked whether the law affected a "core" 2A right and then they created a balancing test to determine whether the government's interest was sufficient to allow the law to stand (e.g., "if it saves one life...").
Thomas, who joined with Scalia in one of his last dissents before his death, where he complained that lower courts were misreading Heller and treating 2A rights as second class rights, fixed what Scalia missed with this opinion. Now, the question is simply whether the law burdens a 2A right, and if so, the lower standards of review that courts had been using (e.g., the balancing test) are officially unconstitutional.
This decision/opinion will be ignored by lower courts in CA, NY, etc., just as Heller was, but it's a solid and important outcome. The resulting state nullification of this opinion should be cause for revolution, but whether the country is ready for that is to be seen....
Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,225 Likes: 24
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,225 Likes: 24 |
Are states like CA and NJ with similar to NY’s law immediately affected by this decision, or will suits need to be brought there?
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,959 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,959 Likes: 2 |
Already three pages of discussion about the impact of this ruling and most of us are not attorneys. I agree this is a positive ruling in favor of the Constitution and I hope it is just the beginning of these type rulings. When the reference "history" I wonder how that will apply to the gun control act of 1968 and the machine gun ban in 1934.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
OP
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,116 Likes: 1 |
Are states like CA and NJ with similar to NY’s law be immediately affected by this decision, or will suits need to be brought there? I think it depends on how obstinate they are. AFAIK, states usually read the opinion and pass new, compliant laws. Sometimes it requires a suit.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
Are states like CA and NJ with similar to NY’s law be immediately affected by this decision, or will suits need to be brought there? Best answer would be what Remsen said in his last paragraph. Liberal States, local municipalities that evoke their own gun laws, and any supporting anti-gun politicians would still likely need to be sued all the way to a loss, before they will capitulate and surrender their fight to limit a law abiding citizens right to carry a firearm legally. 🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,225 Likes: 24
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 86,225 Likes: 24 |
Sounds like yes and maybe.
This decision does affect their laws, but a stick may be required for them to see.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 23,506 |
Sounds like yes and maybe.
This decision does affect their laws, but a stick may be required for them to see. Exactly! 🦫
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog
“Molon Labe”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,805
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,805 |
People are going to have to sue their brakes off. And then people are going to have to demand that they change their laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,096 Likes: 22
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,096 Likes: 22 |
He referred to laws that ban M-16s as being acceptable, Which is wrong -IMO
Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,096 Likes: 22
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39,096 Likes: 22 |
People are going to have to sue their brakes off. And then people are going to have to demand that they change their laws. And I'd bet GOA does the suing long before the NRA
Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,531
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,531 |
The NYC Mayor and Police Commissioner just said that "the case was remanded back to a lower court and nothing has changed, WTF?
Last edited by Sako76; 06/23/22.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,343
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,343 |
Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,274 |
The NYC Mayor and Police Commissioner just said that "the case was reminded back to a lower court and nothing has changed, WTF? It's the way the courts work. The reversal and remand means that the lower court must now apply the law that was just set out in the Supreme Court opinion and require NY to issue permits in accord with the parameters set out in the opinion.
Eliminate qualified immunity and you'll eliminate cops who act like they are above the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,353 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,353 Likes: 1 |
Biggest win ever for 2A rights at SCOTUS.
This will impact on AW bans and magazine bans. How? Iam not a lawyer ,how does conceal carry pistols law , affect AW bans and magazines?..not..being sarcastic From something I wrote during the Jim Zumbo fiasco: Note the emphasis. Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the Untied States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..... Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine) (BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.) Paul B.
Our forefathers did not politely protest the British.They did not vote them out of office, nor did they impeach the king,march on the capitol or ask permission for their rights. ----------------They just shot them.
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
|
|
89 members (69sportfury, 35, 6mmCreedmoor, 6mmbrfan, 257_X_50, 2500HD, 6 invisible),
1,430
guests, and
868
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,118
Posts18,483,513
Members73,966
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
