re: Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

Alito answered you and Breyer. We were all thinking the same thing. See my last post.

Reposting for top of page:

Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the spe- cific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller ex- plained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628.
Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many peo- ple face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was under- stood at the time of adoption to apply under those circum- stances. The Court’s exhaustive historical survey estab- lishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding res- idents from carrying a gun for this purpose.
That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about re- strictions that may be imposed on the possession or carry- ing of guns.
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 atroc- ities? 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.

Yea just read it and was actually surprised to see Alito call him out like that. Guess now that they have a 6-3 majority, they are no longer afraid to just call them on their shite

Thomas and Alito are my heroes.

quote:

---

It did for 2020… when violence skyrocketed in the young adult age range… and what else happened in 2020? Lockdowns. People weren’t driving. Fewer wrecks. For 2022, it will be reversed again.

---

Agreed. Also consider that many children are required to be seated in the back seat in a car seat, which comparatively reduces the chances of fatality compared to the adults up front.

I'd also like to see who they define as children, because it is well known that gun violence among young men is very high. This is not innocent random shootings, but tiled toward inner city gang violence. If you except that number, the overall stats probably look a lot more normal.

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about re- strictions that may be imposed on the possession or carry- ing of guns. 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 atroc- ities? 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.

---

quote:

---

IMHO this ruling opens the door up to quite a few suits regarding the process to own and aquire firearms. DC and NYC have perhaps the most restricted process requiring court appearances, hundred of dollars in fees and can stretch out to nearly a year to buy a gun. Those laws are definitely opposed to this ruling.

---

Yeah, I don't see how the gun restrictions in places like DC and Chicago play with this;

quote:

---

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.”

---

quote:

---

quote: To buy a gun in New York you have to be licensed, yes. Which is horseshite.

---

You need a purchase license to buy a handgun in North Carolina I believe

quote:

---

Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

---

As they should. frick you sick left wing idiots and your gun grabbing agenda. You mother frickers will never get mine

Olbermann is a sad case.