Certa Bonum Certamen
Thank you all for joining us today. We had almost 35,000 people on. We'll be back tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. And check the site later today for coverage of all 4 cases.
NY already has a permit system. You can get one without "too" much trouble as long as you don't live in the five boroughs.Yes, so what will happen in NY is as follows:
They will make it a shall issue, but in effect it will be a never issue unless you are important.
Like DC, you need x number of hours in a NY State approved location, but they will never approve any locations for training.
Like DC, you will submit the application and it will be rejected for "errors". Failed to spell you name fully at any point, rejected, Please start again. By the way, you need to pay the fee again.
Like DC. make the fee too high for the average person.
It is not even close. This is a great win, but it is only a small battle.
So in converse, if you're at a "sensitive place" and the government fails to protect you - you're entitled to lawsuit for damage.The Thomas opinion indicates that it is "settled" that places like polling places and courthouses "were 'sensitive places' where arms carrying could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amendment." And courts can analogize to simliar sensitive places, he adds.
Even Florida has a so-called "red flag" law. And I'm not saying Florida's is the best because apparently it has already been abused by some jurisdictions.
Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what wehave 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 explained, 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 people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.
The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes 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 residents 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 restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying 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 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? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.
And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law.
Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City.
Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year.
I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.
As long as you don't back up to the fence, the conversation might go relatively well.I have always thought that while the 2nd Amendment appears to refer to "arms" as "firearms," I always took it to mean as "force."
Say firearms never progressed beyond flintlocks, and instead an advanced crossbow had taken its place (Imagine if you will a fully automatic crossbow.) A 2nd Amendment COULD have meant this.
Could still mean this...
You are fully able to use ANY weapon of your disposal for your protection of self - this goes hand in hand with your primal "survival instinct" which is just one of your Maker given gifts, along with your gift of insight and dominion that makes a self protection weapon possible.
Imagine a survival instinct with no agency - what kind of a choice would that leave for humankind?
One can imagine the theologians of that world: "Yes we know you want to survive - God (Maker) wants you to survive - but sorry you can't use your mind and your dominion of this earth to improve your chances of survival."
Something VERY hypocritical of a Maker who spawned and sent you to that world. Or more likely hypocritical of the theologians.
Now whether this weapon of unspecified nature protects you from your fellows - or your government (fellows of legal restraint) is immaterial. Protection of self you NEED - and the 2nd Amendment says protection of self you GET.
I wish Judge Roberts could Email me - we would have a MOST INTERESTING discussion. I expect he would be surprised to know to whom he was talking.
Both house and senate are full blown communists far as i’m concerned. But we’ll see how all this plays out. The local folks still have some say in the house and Nov is just around the corner. I have a feeling many of our illustrious commies might just think twice before they follow the DC mantra. JMHOYou’re kidding right? The house is a clear dem majority.
let the skyscreamers begin !!!!SUPREME COURT
Published June 23, 2022 10:31am EDT
Supreme Court shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed handgun licenses
The court ruled in its first major gun case in more than a decade
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
The Supreme Court Thursday ruled 6-3 that New York’s regulations that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun were unconstitutionally restrictive, and that it should be easier to obtain such a license.
The existing standard required an applicant to show "proper cause" for seeking a license, and allowed New York officials to exercise discretion in determining whether a person has shown a good enough reason for needing to carry a firearm. Stating that one wished to protect themselves or their property was not enough.
"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," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court's opinion. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution."
The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, was the first major gun rights case before the Supreme Court in more than a decade.
During oral arguments it seemed likely that the court's conservative justices would rule against the state.
"Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to defend myself?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.
In an exchange with Justice Samuel Alito, New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood recognized that if an applicant stated that the leave work late at night and have to walk from a subway station through a high-crime neighborhood to get home, that person would be denied because they did not cite a specific threat.
"How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense?" Alito asked, stating that this is at the core of the Second Amendment.
Conservatives did indicate that it would be reasonable to have limits on where one could bring a concealed firearm.
This is a developing story. Check back for more details.
Supreme Court shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed handgun licenses | Fox News