Thoughts on the Supreme court decision on guns?

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8

What do you think of this decision?

So if I read correctly, the SC basically said we have a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.

Assuming that is the accurate (please correct me if wrong), I have to say I am kind of disappointed.

Been doing some reading on the "weapon effect" theory--that is, in so many words, that the more weapons there are the more likely they are to be used, and that the more weapons there are, the more agitated people will be, which leads them to use them more--and given the highly divisive nature of our country I just don't think the answer is "more guns".

America has a lot of guns, and America is very angry.

While I don't really believe in gun bans for the most part, I do think we need to relax a bit in our gun culture and get a lot of them out of circulation.

*sigh*

Been a pretty crazy couple of months for the SC.

I agree with the rights to carry a fire arm in some public venues (other than government buildings, hospitals, schools, and religious institutions)

I would prefer though if the government was more strict in the vetting process for fire arms and eliminate loopholes to avoid this process.

Some people (former criminals, the mentally ill) should not be allowed to buy or carry weapons.

I also would not mind limitations in caliber, fire rate and range for civil use weapons.

@DEVILinIRON: I think it was the right decision. Kavanaugh kind of screwed up though. Could have been a bigger win for 2A rights federally. still gives some power with the states and their "requirements". But the fact these states in the NE were denying people thier permits and making them give a proper reason and then still refusing is a sham. Should have never gotten this bad. This is a constitutional right. These states were able to pretty much completely ignore this right for decades which is insane.

Guns are more important than women. That's my takeaway.

Probably the most significant supreme court decision of our lifetimes.

I believe all gun control is infringement, and with this decision, no piece of gun control legislation is safe. Two thumbs up from me.

Does that mean I can carry a gun inside the U.S Supreme Court building? (As long as it's inside the holster)

I agree 100%., but the country is in a state of lunacy and I don't see it getting better.

The NY law was meant to prevent as many from carrying as possible. It's good the SC shut it down. That's not the way to do it. Background checks, registration, and licenses are the way, given to everyone who can pass reasonable requirements.

That right to carry them in public has always existed. It's what "bear" means in the right to keep and "bear" arms which SCOTUS has reaffirmed several times over the past few decades. The issue with NY State's law is they were ignoring that, and were still operating a defacto gun ban by requiring people to list a "good reason" to be approved for a handgun permit, and then telling people their reasons weren't good enough if they said self defense.

What if government said you needed to prove to them you had a good enough reason, and the rights outlined by that amendment protecting it weren't good enough for them? For example, the 5th amendment says you deserve a fair trial if charged with a crime. But, what if you had to submit a form to the state and ask permission for a fair trial, and had to give a good reason, and "because I don't think I am guilty" was determined to not be good enough? Would that state be violating your rights? Yes, yes they would. You cannot apply rules and exceptions to them.

We all knew this decision was coming, we just needed it to get to SCOTUS first. I won't be surprised if magazine limits are challenged, and tossed out the window for the garbage legislation those are too.

Yeah? Tell that to the ones who stopped their would-be racists with a firearm. You think she's going to win a round of fisty-cuffs with four guys twice her size? Give me a fucking break. Maybe now in NY State they can protect themselves for a change.

It's the new wave of American talibans.

As a British person your Second Amendment seems utterly daft. If a police officer stops you in the UK and finds something on you that could be used as an offensive weapon, you will be arrested and charged with possession of said 'weapon'.

The very idea of hundreds of thousands of people walking around with a hand gun that can potentially kill someone seems a really, really stupid idea.

Where is the well regulated militia?

Aah, another commenter intent on pretending that means something it doesn't. Someone who isn't even a native speaker is going to tell me what all these words meant when they were written no doubt. Definition of a militia, all able bodied citizens capable of serving in the military. Well regulated means functional. That means for a body of citizens capable of serving in the military if needed, at the best of their abilities, the right for people to keep and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

Definition 2 of the Webster dictionary is the one you want. The one the founders who wrote the constitution explained, and what the Supreme Court has reaffirmed likely dozens of times by now. At best if you wanted to go by the definition to the letter you could say only men are allowed to keep and own guns. But I don't think you're going to try to make that argument.

The whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

And yet, only about 9,000-10,000 homicides a year that use them, and most of those are gang on gang violence. Tell me, how many women a year do you think DON'T get raped because they have one? How many houses do you think don't get breaken into because there's a reasonable risk of the burglar being shot?

Meanwhile, in your country, someone will behead a woman in the street, while the only thing citizens do is pull out their cell phones and record it making little to no effort to save that life.

9,000 to 10,000 gun deaths a year and you state those figures as good or even low?? Or it's okay because it's only potential scum killing other potential scum. A Life is a life.

I don't recall any recent attacks where a person was beheaded in the street in the UK and people took photo's. We have what you would think a zero tolerance to weapons here. If you left work with a screwdriver in your pocket you can be charged with possession of an offensive weapon and rightly so!

Unless it's a ban on guns, I don't care. But America is going to give guns to children before that happens.

@eoten: That's an interesting point. Do you have the numbers to support that? Genuinely curious to know if rape in the US is significantly lower than in other countries.

Edit: My bad for thinking you weren't just making things up. I see the US is fairly worst than most countries with strict gun control.

There's one thing I don't get. You and other fundamentalists around here just lie or make things up frequently to justify your ideological positions. I honestly think that's a disservice to yourselves. I don't think you need to do that, just assume your beliefs and justify them within your moral frame work. It's not like you see communists saying that every one will be a millionaire under communism or talibans saying that stoning women is great for skincare.

If you want to make your point come across and you justify it through make-believe the only ones you'll reach are the dumb ones.

I'll give you a video. She cites all the sources and studies used. And no, we don't lie. You just don't agree. That's not the same thing.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

Here ya go

Originalists/Textualists twist themselves and look stupid when you ever ask them this lol.

And he actually did that after you posted, citing a dictionary that he said was fake news earlier this year and then suddenly not taking the literal written part of "male" as gospel....but taking other words as gospel. Neither of which are actually in the constitution, which he has also argued earlier this year made arguments invalid if they aren't literally written in there. Multiple flip-flops on his constitutional interpretation beliefs.

Self-pretzeled.

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=uclr

Originalist? You mean people who go for the meanings used by the founders and the intent they had with them? As opposed to what? Your fabricated, rewritten definitions made to fit the current narrative? That's not how law works, and you know that.

Woosh. Don't care about your subjective view point on Originalism, neither was I bashing Originalism or Textualism in that post.

I was saying these partisan clowns (like you) aren't originalists or textualists anymore when it comes to this particular issue. That's the funny part, and shows it's all just about petty politics. Which is why conservatives like this style of reading more, because it makes it easier to push their political views

Rape in US is at a far higher rate than most other developed countries. While having far more guns. Areas with less gun restrictions have more homicides. Gun freaks know their positions is the wrong one.

@eoten: Yeah that means literally nothing. Sorry to say this but what you are doing is just passing propaganda.

You could have a point if the US actually had low rape rates when compared with other countries but unfortunately it doesn't.

So there's absolutely no correlation. You see, I know a lot of people who avoided rape (or what they assumed it could be) by taking action in a number of ways that didn't involved a gun, or even direct confrontation. So if the rates don't correlate with the method it means the answer isn't in the method. Again, if you had numbers to back it up great, but as it stands all you are doing is just picking a propaganda piece to justify your fundamentalism towards some scriptures.

That's on the same level of blaming video games, movies or music lyrics. Escapist propaganda, nothing less. If other countries didn't had those same things one could be lead to wonder, but when you have a lot of coinciding variants and then you have one that keeps popping up as the anomaly, you can try to ignore it all you want but it doesn't go away.

I posted a link saying the opposite of what he claims.

@LJS9502_basic: OK thanks, I see there's a pattern here, with this user.

Indeed let me quote Webster

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary offers three definitions of militia:

: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

: a body of citizens organized for military service

: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Stop pretending that it means something it doesn't. Someone who isn't even a native speaker is going to tell me what all these words meant when they were written no doubt. Definition of a militia, all able bodied citizens capable of serving in the military. Well regulated means functional. That means for a body of citizens capable of serving in the military if needed, at the best of their abilities, the right for people to keep and carry firearms shall not be infringed.

Are the general American fit for the US military?

In 2019, 34.8% of Texans were obese compared to 30.9% of Americans.

Is an obese person fit for the US military? Should only people who are fit for the military be allowed to carry weapons? That's the argument you just made. Which I think is far more limiting than what most left wing users here propose.

You're picking and choosing the definition you want to be the correct one. Here, let the founders themselves tell you which definition they used.

Thomas Jefferson:“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

George Mason:“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Tenche Coxe:“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

George Washington:“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Patrick Henry:“The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Patrick Henry:“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson,Commonplace Book(quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison,I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee,Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story,Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Gee, I wonder where SCOTUS got the idea it was a right for all citizens. Hmm, hard to say.

Disagree with it all you want. You can believe it SHOULDN'T be a right. But you cannot say with honesty that at present, it isn't, and that the constitution clearly doesn't protect that right. Don't try to twist the meanings of the words in order to bullshit me on what it says. And you can see why the SCOTUS ruling is legally correct. (The only kind of correct their job demands them to be).

@eoten: If you would learn the context then you would know that all abled bodied white men were a militia that trained on weekends. Hence the well regulated part of the amendment. There were limits, however, on the amount of powder that was allowed to be stored in the home.

Listen, take the L. You're trying to tell me what the founders said, what they clearly meant, and what they described in clear detail isn't what they actually meant and I should listen to your canned and regurgitated NPR redefinitions?

You can disagree by saying you think the constitution should be changed. You could disagree and say you don't think people should have that right. But you cannot sit there, lie to my face, and tell me that at present it isn't, or that the founders never intended it to be without being intentionally disingenuous in doing so.

Eoten doesn't know what he's talking about and he's turning himself into a pretzel trying to defend the well regulated militia part while trying to remain a textualist or originalist. This hypocrisy has been noted by many notable legal scholars as it pertains to Scalia and the NRA. Eoten isn't a notable legal scholar, he barely understands how to put on a surgical mask.

FADEL: How has the court's interpretation of the clause well-organized militia changed in recent years?

WALDMAN: Well, they've basically ignored it. They've erased it. The original meaning of the Second Amendment was at a time when all men were required to be in the militia from age 16 to 60 and required by law to own a gun. And that's what bear arms was referring to. But what the Supreme Court has said is it's really now about an individual right. And what they said today - and this is why the opinion is going to be so sweeping in its impact even beyond New York's law, which has been on the books for a century. Ever since that 2008 case and another case in 2010, hundreds of opinions by courts in America - hundreds of federal court and state court opinions have said, well, OK, how do we know what kind of gun laws are constitutional? And they said, yes, there's an individual right. We look to see whether that right is affected.

“A fraud on the Amer­ican public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amend­ment gives an unfettered indi­vidual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conser­vat­ive appoin­ted by Richard Nixon was express­ing the long­time consensus of histor­i­ans and judges across the polit­ical spec­trum.

Not sure what far right legal op-ed he's quoting, but this is a new thing spawned from conservative activism. The consensus of judges and historians was completely different until the NRA started thier bullshit in the 70's.

ROFLMAO, an NPR article? I can read for myself what the founders of the constitution, and it's architects said and wrote for myself. Do you seriously think an article from a bunch of NPR hacks outranks or overrules that? You're trying to tell me Michael fucking Waldmen who worked for Bill Clinton knows more about the constitution than the people who picked up a pen, and wrote it?

You're clearly trolling. Nobody could be that credulous.

So?

NPR (National Public Radio) - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

The legal scholar they are talking to read it also. Meanwhile you're a Q-Anon scholar who flip flops on his constitution interpretation style depending on his politics.

No, I'm telling you Michael Waldmen knows more than you, and is a better source of citation then "Eoten's flip flopping legal bullshit". He disagrees with your unprofessional opinions by bringing up the original meaning.

You skipped the part where I also quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger, who also knows A LOT more than you do and says you're wrong. And most historians and judges of that time.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment - POLITICO Magazine

You're clearly trolling.

I don't give a shit who you cherry picked. SCOTUS has ruled on this several times. I could cite each and every one of them and you can cite the few who dissented. It doesn't change what was clearly written, and what the founders who wrote it clearly described in detail. Berger doesn't know more than the countless SCOTUS rulings or the founders. You're yet again using an appeal to authority with a cherry picked source ignoring dozens of others including the original sources themselves. You lost this one.

According to the consensus of most historians and judges, it wasn't for designed for unfettered individual rights to a gun.

“A fraud on the Amer­ican public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amend­ment gives an unfettered indi­vidual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conser­vat­ive appoin­ted by Richard Nixon was express­ing the long­time consensus of histor­i­ans and judges across the polit­ical spec­trum.

You flip flop on originalism depending on your politics. 😉

Don't worry, this behavior has been discussed multiple times by legal scholars when it comes to Scalia. I can link those papers if you want?

Crying about appeal to authority even though you did the same thing 2 sentences earlier. lol.

The arbitrary "special need" was bound to be struck down, and good job on the court for recognizing that.

.

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. - Opinion

I'm telling the actual history of the amendment and the requirements. Why can't you handle the truth....ever?

He can't admit he's being a political activist when it comes to the second amendment. It proves that people's ideas on the constitution change depending on the topic, and that it's really all about politics.

The consensus of historians and judges disagree with his viewpoint on militia vs individuals.

Purely political activist nonsense, and this fact is well documented:

Gun-rights activists remade the Second Amendment over past 40 years - The Washington Post

Yet while the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, its role as an impediment to gun control is a modern creation. In the late 20th century, gun rights activists forged a new understanding of the amendment through politics. Exploring their constitutional coup provides a blueprint for those who aim to supplant it in the name of reducing America’s epidemic of gun violence. For most of American history, the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to bear arms. As a natural reading of its text would suggest, it was understood to safeguard the rights of “free state[s]” to maintain “well-regulated militia[s].” During the ratification of the Constitution, drafters worried the emerging document could eradicate state militias and create a standing army that threatened state sovereignty. The Second Amendment aimed to prevent that.

In 1939, the Supreme Court unanimously endorsedt his militia-based understanding of the amendment. Three years later, a federal appellate court noted that it was “abundantly clear” that the Second Amendment “was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” This legal consensus over the Constitution’s meaning held for another three decades.

But the political consensus underpinning it started to unravel in the tumult of the late 1960s. Protests, riots and rising crime led many Americans to buy guns for personal protection. Among them were White Americans dismayed by civil rights activism. Members of gun groups like the National Rifle Association demanded their organizations focus more on politics instead of marksmanship and recreation, the domains that primarily defined the NRA’s earlier years.

While courts remained unreceptive to this argument, the gun lobby and its supporters built a political infrastructure to advance it. The NRAset upa lobbying operation in 1975 and a political action committee in 1977, capitalizing on changes to campaign finance law and new direct mail fundraising tactics developed by the New Right. It also expanded — and in many cases, established — political machines in all 50 states.

Continues into historical detail on how these far right activists eventually took over. Anyone telling you it's about "muh law" instead of them just wanting their political issue to win is lying on this particular topic. And that's a fact.

(P.S. It's the same with anti-abortion, a relatively new movement based off of some cult like psychopath tricking everyone. No one cared before this.).

It's mentioned a few times if you read the rather long opinion. I recommend control-f "militia" after you download the opinion--you can find it here.

History? I quoted the words, direct quotes of the architects of the constitution itself. The meanings of their words and what they wrote has not changed.

A consensus of historians and judges? Do those outrank the constitutions architects and dozens of rulings by SCOTUS over the past 200 years? No, they don't. Your activist "historians" have absolutely no say in the matter. The 2A will be a right in this country long after you are gone. Get over it.

Now quote the actual words in the Amendment.

@DEVILinIRON: Imagine if you had to prove you needed the right to free speech before you used it...

Yes. Problem? This is a fact. Your view point is relatively new, and based on activism that started in the 70's. This is a documented fact.

Nope, the SCOTUS justice I linked earlier directly disagreed with you. And what do you mean by 200 years, that's not true. That wasn't their view point until recently:

You're an activist on this issue, and cry about activism on other issues. You pick and choose, depending on what you like or don't like politically. It's all partisan politics. You don't know or care about the legal aspects. You like this ruling because you like guns.

Don't bother responding unless you can find citation refuting the above historical article.

He has no clue about any of this. It's amazing really.

Gee, shall we count the number of SCOTUS judges who agree and disagree since we're going to use the single judge you cherry picked to make your appeal to authority argument?

As opposed you making an appeal to authority argument by using the very small number of people who agree with you and denied the legal consensus before NRA activism began? The judicial and historical consensus disagreed with you for hundreds of years until the 1970's.

You have to disprove this historical article that proves it's modern activism,

Citation will be required to refute the above, you activist.

Ah the old appeal to authority. A political court states opinion does not make it fact. It wasn't even interpreted that way at the start. No one could walk around with a gun whenever and wherever they wanted. Period. Learn history.