ALERT US Supreme Court Opinion Issuance Day - Thursday, June 23, 2022

Macgyver

Has No Life - Lives on TB
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.

How?

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.
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.
They would have to change the whole state and that's not going to happen. Too much red upstate.
 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen
My comment: Just to illustrate how intense the interest has been the last several weeks, on a normal "busy" opinion release day there would be an average of 4,000 people on the live blog. Today was an increase by orders of magnitude! It will only get busier tomorrow and next week.
 

CaryC

Veteran Member
So if the turncoat RINO Senators help pass this new red flag law with the Dems, do you guys think the Supremes could overturn it next season?
Nope.

Part of the reason I say that is, it CAN take years to get cases before the court. And until then those laws like NY's are still in effect.

2nd depending on several things the US legislature can enact laws (not to mention EO's) that restrict the 2nd.

3rd you need someone to bring a suit. Usually that takes a lot of money.

Just some thoughts.
 

Sammy55

Veteran Member
I hope this Bruen decision on 2A lights a fire under our senators and reps and lets them KNOW that if they pass this gun control bill, that it WILL end up at the USSC!! They pass this bill and I'm sure there will probably be several states (or more) filing for a stay against this bill being put into action. Maybe the sens and reps will think twice from seeing this 2A decision and from seeing the recent polls from, which I saw, said that the majority of people were not in favor of 2A restrictions. A few things, like mental health cases, the people would like to see addressed, but just going out and denying rights - NO!

If a person is old enough to send to war and vote at age 18, then they are old enough to own their own guns and cars and houses and.... Many men AND women are already married and/or have kids at age 18!
 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen

In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law

By Amy Howe
on Jun 23, 2022 at 10:36 am

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.

The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’s first significant decision on gun rights in over a decade. In a far-reaching ruling, the court made clear that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” protects a broad right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Going forward, Thomas explained, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history

The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities.

The lower courts upheld the New York law against a challenge from two men whose applications for concealed-carry licenses were denied. But on Thursday, the Supreme Court tossed out the law in an ideologically divided 63-page opinion.

Although U.S. history has at times placed some “well-defined restrictions” on the right to carry firearms in public, Thomas explained, there was no tradition of a broad prohibition on carrying commonly used guns in public for self-defense. And with rare exceptions, Thomas added, there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, Thomas concluded, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

In concurring opinions, both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The court’s ruling, Alito stressed, “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 kind of weapons that people may possess.”

In an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh contended that Thursday’s ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.”

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Arguing that the question before the court was “the extent to which the Second Amendment restricts different States (and the Federal Government) from working out solutions to” gun violence “through democratic processes,” Breyer faulted his colleagues for striking down the New York law without a record that would allow it to determine how the New York scheme actually works in practice, “without considering the State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of its decision.”
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
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.
So in converse, if you're at a "sensitive place" and the government fails to protect you - you're entitled to lawsuit for damage.

Ashley Babbitt will be glad to hear that.

Perhaps her kin.

Dobbin
 

Kathy in FL

TB Fanatic
So if the turncoat RINO Senators help pass this new red flag law with the Dems, do you guys think the Supremes could overturn it next season?
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.

However, there are supposed to be rules in place before a red-flag can be acted on in terms of confiscation of firearms. If I understand it correctly, just like with Baker Act, the person must be an immediate threat to self and others and additionally you have to get a judge to issue a writ for confiscation. You can't confiscate and then go back and fill in the paperwork properly.

They are trying to make red flag laws fit too many parameters. Such as the woman that finds another woman in her man's bed and then threatens to kill them at some future point. But also cover a gangbanger's crib. And also someone that has failed some mental health status/check.

Think about what the RICO laws were original meant for and how they are currently used.
 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen

North Carolina Republican lawmakers win right to intervene in court and defend state’s voter-ID law

By Amy Howe
on Jun 23, 2022 at 12:50 pm


The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that two Republican legislators in North Carolina can join a lawsuit to defend the constitutionality of the state’s voter-identification law. Two lower courts had rejected the legislators’ request, reasoning that the state’s Democratic attorney general and the board of elections were already defending the law, but the justices reversed those rulings. In an 8-1 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court ruled that the Republican legislators have a right to intervene in the lawsuit.

Thursday’s decision addressed only the legislators’ right to join the lawsuit to defend the voter-ID law; it did not address the underlying issue of whether the law violates federal voting-rights protections.

The law at the center of the case requires voters to provide photo identification to cast a ballot and directs county election boards to provide ID cards at no cost to voters. The state’s legislature passed the law in 2018, and it went into effect over a veto by the state’s governor, Democrat Roy Cooper. The North Carolina NAACP then went to federal court, where it argued that the law violates both federal voting rights laws and the Constitution. When Philip Berger, the leader of the North Carolina Senate, and Timothy Moore, the leader of the state’s House of Representatives, asked to intervene in the lawsuit, the district court rebuffed their request, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld that decision.

In an 18-page opinion, Gorsuch explained that other provisions of North Carolina law had specifically given its legislative leaders the power to defend the state’s interests in cases like this one. What’s more, Gorsuch added, the 4th Circuit was wrong to presume that the state’s attorney general, Democrat Josh Stein, had adequately represented the state’s interests. Such a presumption, Gorsuch explained, “is inappropriate when a duly authorized state agent seeks to intervene to defend a state law.”

Gorsuch acknowledged the NAACP’s concern that allowing legislative leaders to intervene to defend state laws could in some cases make litigation more complicated and potentially unwieldy. “But that case is not this case,” Gorsuch stressed. The legislative leaders “bring a distinct state interest” to the case – and indeed, “federal courts routinely handle cases involving multiple officials sometimes represented by different attorneys taking different positions.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone dissenter. She described Thursday’s ruling as “wrong for two reasons.” First, she explained, the majority should not have presumed that “a State is inadequately represented in federal court unless whomever state law designates as a State’s representative is allowed to intervene.” Such a presumption, she reasoned, “improperly permits state law, as opposed to federal law, to determine whether an existing party adequately represents a particular interest.” And second, she continued, the majority was wrong to imply that Stein’s “defense of the constitutionality of the voting law at issue here fell below a minimal standard of adequacy.”
 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen
Thompson,

Thank you for all of the work that you do bring forth these decisions.

I read a couple of the decisions and was nearly brain dead and asleep by the time I got to the end of the decisions.

Thank you again.

Texican....
You're very welcome!
 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen

Alito Takes a Blow Torch to Liberal Justices' Dissent

Katie Pavlich
Posted: Jun 23, 2022 2:15 PM

On Thursday morning the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down restrictive "may issue" concealed carry laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and explained how the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

The arguments made by the dissenting justices were wildly irrelevant from the issue of constitutionality and current law, prompting Justice Samuel Alito to file a separate, concurring opinion destroying their claims. He also took issue with their ignorance and arrogance surrounding the facts of lawful gun ownership vs. criminality. (Take a look, bolding is mine)
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.
 

thompson

Certa Bonum Certamen

Dems Lose Their Minds, DOJ Makes Concerning Statement on SCOTUS Gun Rights Decision

By Nick Arama | Jun 23, 2022 4:00 PM ET

On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for gun rights. The Court decided that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home” and that the New York law requiring a “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry license was unconstitutional.

My colleague Joe Cunningham reported on some of the unhinged reactions from the peanut gallery including Keith Olbermann, former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Bharara said, “SCOTUS read neither the room nor the Constitution correctly.” Funny, and perhaps telling that he doesn’t understand that the Court isn’t supposed to be ‘reading the room’ but deciding purely on the Constitution no matter what the ‘room’ says.

But the reaction of the Democrats in power was both delusional and concerning.

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul didn’t take the decision well. Indeed, she said they would fight for even more restrictions, despite the Supreme Court’s decision. Hochul said that if the Court wanted to consider the original meaning of the Constitution, she was willing to go back to “muskets.” She revealed not only how extreme she is, but how ignorant she is of the law.


35 seconds of pure idiocy
View: https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1539985290290413570?s=20&t=XYZt2rwn1tdr4aCLJv39Bw


Fine, then she has to give up her cellphone, her microphone, and her Botox. She might be in trouble. This is a false narrative that they push, as though the Founders couldn’t anticipate harmful weapons when, indeed, they had cannons and people could have those, despite Joe Biden’s lies to the contrary.

Hochul goes on to falsely make a claim about restrictions on speech that Joe Biden often makes, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”


28 mind-numbing seconds run time
View: https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1539984946080645120?s=20&t=35pixG3mlAEJqWGboxJ2tw


“Shocking. Absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions. We can have restrictions on speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, but somehow there’s no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment?”

Indeed there is no such restriction, no matter how many times Democrats lie about it and try to use it to justify their unconstitutional impulses. As we’ve previously explained, that expression stems from dictum (meaning not binding as a legal precedent) in a case that was later overturned. So, it never had the force of law; it’s just something that people who want to grab your rights ignorantly say. It’s disturbing that she either doesn’t know that or that she doesn’t care about the truth–when she has a legal degree and should know.

Then there was Joe Biden’s reaction. Nowhere in this reaction does he say he accepts the decision despite not liking it. He seems to have thrown that norm right out the window. Indeed, it sounds like he’s calling for people to come out and protest this decision.

@DevonHeinen
#BREAKING #Biden stmt re: today's #SCOTUS ruling on the #guns-related case NYS Rifle & Pistol Assoc v. Bruen: "I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. ... I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on #GunSafety. Lives are on the line."

View: https://twitter.com/DevonHeinen/status/1540004149755932672?s=20&t=KceGj8RjheLAlrmb4IxacA


Biden said, “I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling. … I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on #GunSafety. Lives are on the line.”

The DOJ also issued a concerning statement, again not saying that they would uphold the decision but saying they “disagree.”


View: https://twitter.com/jenvanlaar/status/1540020427262763008?s=20&t=fw7Q2M6owBd1n5fGz52X4A


It isn’t up to the DOJ to disagree — it’s supposed to be an objective, non-political entity enforcing the law. They’re not supposed to be making political comment. Why are they commenting at all on this? And are they saying they won’t enforce the law or act in accordance with the decision?

Jennifer Van Laar mentions in her tweet the proposal wending its way through the Senate now that envisions the states imposing red flag laws, that the DOJ isn’t interested in protecting your rights and they show it by this statement. But given this case, will the red flag laws the Senate is envisioning even survive this decision, or does it pre-emptively cut their legs out from under them?

These Democratic reactions are concerning particularly following the Democratic reactions to the pending abortion case. Talking about tossing norms out the window. Will they be accepting the decisions? Are they going to enforce them or not?

View: https://twitter.com/JCNSeverino/status/1540030003253059586?s=20&t=rpmx27x64N5A_FgP8Eq4qw
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
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.

Dobbin
 

EMICT

Veteran Member
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.

Dobbin
As long as you don't back up to the fence, the conversation might go relatively well.
 

rhughe13

Heart of Dixie
You’re kidding right? The house is a clear dem majority.
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. JMHO
 

155 arty

Veteran Member
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.

Gun control reform being discussed in the House and Senate: HasnieVideo

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
let the skyscreamers begin !!!!
 

Heliobas Disciple

TB Fanatic
I'm not sure if it's been said yet in this thread, if not, I'll say it now: Thank God for Donald Trump. :wvflg:

And I notice that July 4th is a Monday making the weekend starting July 2nd a 3 day weekend. I wouldn't be surprised of they wait until July 1st to release RvW so that they have the longer weekend to 'peacefully protest'.

HD
 
Top