Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This is the place to post your news and reviews on anything that's firearm related (rifles, magazines, ammo, barrels, holsters, training classes, optics, etc). Please try to make the reviews as thorough as possible and include pictures, or links to pictures if possible, as well as price(s). Some syndicated content will go here as well.
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for selfdefense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The proper long-term end point is national constitutional-carry. I mean - given that the Constitution, as amended, explicitly guarantees the right to carry, I'd think that any law restricting such a right should be held unconstitutional.
BigNate wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2022, 9:20 am
Absolutely a step in the right direction.
The proper long-term end point is national constitutional-carry. I mean - given that the Constitution, as amended, explicitly guarantees the right to carry, I'd think that any law restricting such a right should be held unconstitutional.
With SCOUTUS ruling I can see other Woken state laws being struck down,
BigNate wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2022, 9:20 am
Absolutely a step in the right direction.
The proper long-term end point is national constitutional-carry. I mean - given that the Constitution, as amended, explicitly guarantees the right to carry, I'd think that any law restricting such a right should be held unconstitutional.
With SCOUTUS ruling I can see other Woken state laws being struck down,
One can hope... I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the coasts...
What is interesting to me is that I am seeing language in the text of the rendering (which I am reading) that specifically attacks the logic Scalia used in HELLER to defend the continuation of felon prohibition. He stated in HELLER that the government has a "compelling interest" in depriving felons of their 2nd Amendment rights even after all other rights are restored. Basically endorsing the "interest balancing" rationale he rips apart Breyer for using.
Yet in this rendering, Justice Thomas eviscerates the "interest balancing" rationale even further than Scalia did. And by doing so, lays the ground work for arguing against the NFA as well as felon prohibition.
Hopefully this new case will have a chilling effect on the new proposed laws. If someone cares enough to look for it, the new case probably establishes how these proposed laws will not stand.
And here, the NRA is claiming a victory, when they didn't even argue the case. Muther Phuckers, they were probably trying to sabotage it like the other cases.