Supreme Court shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed handgun licenses

Pretty straight forward application of the second Amendment.   The right applies to all citizens, not just those who the government believes have "proper cause" to believe they need to protect themselves. 

This also overturns a similar law in MA where you had to prove a need for the gun.

I guess means 2nd Amendment rights are no different than other rights.

it more than likely means they will have to roll things back to like when i got a CCP in MA in the 80s , simple BGC and a reasonable reason to have it , otherwise a sporting and target permit would suffice( i doubt they even have those anymore ) .so unless they fail the BGC, it will become a shall issue instead of may issue at governments discretion .

[deleted]

Alito's response to dissenting liberal Justices

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/06/23/alito-takes-a-blow-torch-to-liberal-justices-opinion-on-latest-gun-case-n2609218?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

Nice of Thomas to point this out:

"A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War  commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that  free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks  were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the  privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right  “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America."

The conservative majority on the SC is messing up!

Indeed... We have an epidemic of gun violence in the USA and our corrupt, radicalized SCOTUS just threw gas on the fire. 

You could always buy and own guns in NY. We just prohibited open carry. This is just more partisan BS from this court.

If the mantra more 'good' guys with guns was true, we should be the safest country on the planet...

The New York law required approval of a demonstrated 'specific need" for those who wanted to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. That wasn't anymore onerous than requiring a permit to exercise free speech or requiring newspapers to demonstrate the specific need to print something.

We wouldn't really have a "People" problem.....would we ?

You aren't supposed to address the actual problem.  Some people hate it when their narrative hits a wall.

If the mantra more 'good' guys with guns was true, we should be the safest country on the planet...

100% spot on. 

So if people are the problem, why give them guns? 

The whole purpose of states' rights is to decide what is right for their state. For 100 years this law stood. Obviously, no other court found our laws anti-Constitutional. 

This is just more partisan BS from this court.

Exactly. I support the 2A, but this is ridiculous. 

SCOTUS upheld the Constitution.

They also upheld it with Roe v Wade, but the current SCOTUS doesn't care.

Funny how they say that should be up to the states...

Perrie , there are 2 types of carry as i know you know and both have their places i think.

,open carry is not one of my favorite in public, but is permissable i do it hunting and doing some odd jobs out of caution . concealed carry which is where i think this particular case origionated is something different , and more to my liking in public .the permit to carry concealed is what was at issue and decided by the court .and they found that NY was in violation in the way they issued permits/lics . doesnt matter if it was a 100+ year old presedent .

besides , if someone is properly carrying concealed .... one will never know about it anyway .

"Indeed... We have an epidemic of gun violence in the USA and our corrupt, radicalized SCOTUS just threw gas on the fire."

... and that's why there is such a big push to outlaw non-medicinal drugs.

This is just more partisan BS from this court.

Lol.

The whole purpose of states' rights is to decide what is right for their state.

States still have to follow the constitution, they can't outlaw freedom of speech, right to privacy, right to keep and bear arms along with the others in the Bill of Rights. 

Exactly. I support the 2A, but this is ridiculous. 

Exactly.

If the mantra more 'good' guys with guns was true, we should be the safest country on the planet...

This assumes that good guys with guns are always carrying. They aren't. Most don't. It's pretty rare that the ones who do are actually at a place where a crime is happening where they can make a difference. Even when they are, you rarely hear about it because the MSM are loath to report it. So, while what you say sounds right on the surface, it really isn't. 

Your latest idiotic comment

Do you have some point you aren't making here?

Yes, the current SCOTUS does not give a crap about history, only about twisting this country to meet their ideal right wing extreme policies.  Right wing has already shown they don't truly give a crap about the Constitution.

This assumes that good guys with guns are always carrying.

This assumes you can tell the difference between a "good guy" with a gun, and a "bad guy" with a gun, before they take any action.

Obviously, no other court found our laws anti-Constitutional.

Until now, it stands to reason no one brought it up before???

This assumes you can tell the difference between a "good guy" with a gun, and a "bad guy" with a gun, before they take any action.

Not sure what sort of scenario you have in mind. Don't know where you live but no one makes a big deal about concealed carry here and I think you'd be surprised how many do. Point being, you could be passing people who CC all the time but you wouldn't know it because, contrary to the fear mongers, they don't suddenly lose it and just start shooting people. I think most states allow CC and we don't see random, legal CC's being a problem. I don't know why New York, the Dems and the rest think Armageddon or a Zombie Apocalypse is now eminent just because SCOTUS returned rights to people. 

I guess that would depend heavily on where you live and what you see going on there. As has been pointed out to you 8 million people in one city and a world-renowned city at that, and terrorism target kind of makes New York City exceptional. Unique, even, for the United States. It does bother me that many small rural areas, not knowing if you are rural living or not, keep trying to manage big, sophisticated, "happening," cities like small-villes. No offense to small towns, but there is not much rural life can tell big cities about their urbanity based on local experiences.

It does bother me that many small rural areas, not knowing if you are rural living or not, keep trying to manage big, sophisticated, "happening," cities like small-villes.

now i do find that really funny because out here in east west cameltoed buttrump, i hear the same thing only its always the big city gun control fanatics that think they should have the right to dictate to the rubes in the sticks what they can and cant have or what they think the rubes need . here is a hint , never happen .

 think of where does ALL the urban areas food come from ?  if the urbanites got their way , whats to stop them from demanding more than us in rual area will give or sell? nothing , you will just legalize theft using color of law .

take CA's prop 12 , that ones going down in flames , they can enforce it within CA state jurisdiction but as soon as one crosses the CA border its NULL AND VOID anywhere else .

 what i laff about that is id CA only produces 10% of the pork they consume , they import from other states the 90 % they dont produce . which according to the meat industry is only 3 % of what the country uses .

I would say eat shit and live to those in CA but im starting to think the only pork flavoring they will have left is in the pig shit of the pigs raised in state .

Here's as plain as I can put it, CB. What SCOTUS did will have little, if any, effect. This is because there aren't people waiting around to get a CC permit so that they can go out and shoot someone. If they are going to shoot someone they're just going to go out and shoot someone. Only someone who has a problem with thinking rationally is going to think that the people who are now going to get their CC permit are thinking "Finally! Now I can go out and shoot somebody!" 

It sounds like you agree with me overall: We 'both' need each other. And that can be the end of that!

All I am saying is we can talk about having guns overlapping like we talk about everything else that is done to excess and overindulgence. Too much of . . .well anything is too much and experience informs us will cause physical and mental changes, conflicts, and problems. We as a society have to talk about advancing what is wholesome, good, dutiful, and orderly without the put-downs and demonizing and simply talking pass each other. Why? Because at the end of the day, we're all we 'got' and if we don't have that-we're not the world's exceptional country. The title of necessity moves to some other nation!

what i CAN agree with is that neither place has the same needs , but what does need to happen is the individuals rights have to be protected .

way i see it its like why we have both a house of reps , and a senate .

 each has very different jobs and responsabilities 

 One is the representative of the people speaking for the people .

 the other represents and speaks for the states interests .

 sometimes what is good for the people is NOT good for the state 

 and sometimes what is good for the state is not good for the people 

 So they have to compromise somehow .

 same for city and country dwellers , whats good for a city may not be good for a country folk and vice versa 

problem i see , there wont be any compromises unless the suggested changes actually has an affect on the root problems ..and the problem isnt guns , they do nothing all by themself .

I see now. The issue we have today is: Guns have freedoms too, equal to the people they tool for! Mark, there is a bit of 'Twain' in your delivery and I like that. Good work.

LOL. Fluffery.

Tell that to DeSantis who is using his state government to punish those that speak against his ideals.

Just like the trumpturd

You see , you mentioned the one word i do firmly believe that discribes firearms of any kind .

 that they are a tool.

by themselves they are not good , bad evil or anything else , in order to become otherwise they need an outside force that employs them  and whether that use is good or evil , depends on how that outside force employs them .

 here is one way to look at it .

 lets say you bring your car into the shop because its acting "funny" it has a strange and different vibration you know is not normal.

 the mechanic looks and says your motormounts are loose , so he has a choice of using an end wrench , a manual socket wrench or an air gun to tighten things up.

 you get your car back and a mile down the road  the engine starts spinning like a top in the engine compartment pretty much destroying the car .

Who is to blame ? the different wrenches , or the mechanic ? or fate because there was another problem not found ?

Those are nice sentiments and it would be nice if we could actually do those things but we can't. This is because what opponents of the 2nd Amendment mean by "talking about the issue" is telling the other side they are evil heartless people for not believing as they do, even though their beliefs are mostly irrational. Like this NY CC issue. It doesn't matter how much rationality is brought to the table, too many who are opposed can't think any deeper than "people got shot with guns so guns must be the problem." 

Mostly, the blame will be placed on the human mechanic with the operating faculties. Secondarily, additional problems will be looked into if to be found. Here is my additional take:

Liberals see the issue of guns as fixable and correctable by limiting the supply of guns or eradication. They feel this should be doable, because guns are not living, breathing tools (of course they are not). However, liberals blunder on guns' "station" in life, because they do not realize conservatives are supporting this country's unique constitutional LIFE granted to this tool and that life is even enhanced farther each new evolution of the gun.

Conservatives want to keep the freedoms granted to the gun-and fix people if/where/when possible.  Do I have the dilemma right?

I will ask you to read my 'take' and reply @4.2.46 to get a sense of what can occur when we start writing to and listening to each other.

Again, do both of these to each other.

Mark and Snuffy, both men with understanding and usages of guns, patiently talked me through their personal position, New York's position, and SCOTUS' position. Even with the barbs we loosely connected with-we persisted to talk to each other and the rhetoric 'broke down.'

The truth being what it is (as even New York's legislature recognizes and notes on its licensing form that were regard to be given to self-defense per se, it would have be accomplished in a legislative session and that session by being compelled.), there will be more filings for concealed carry in New York City/state as liberals project and hopefully and prayerfully more peace for its citizens and LEOs besides.

Conservatives want to keep the freedoms granted to the gun-

thats where you lose me .

those inclined to own firearms want to keep the freedom/rights  associated with with said ownership.

 notice i said those inclined to gun ownership because one can be conservative or liberal and anywhere in between and still be a gun owner and have many different reasons for doing so  .

A firearm is an inanimate object , it has no "life "  and can never be made to be alive  so thus it can also have not inherent "freedoms "

 now your getting the idea of how i see it , it wasnt the mechanics tools , it was the mechanic  that was first to be blamed . and then it was looking for a secondary reason (fate) to be considered as a possible cause , to maybe get the mechanic off the hook , but still NOT the tool .

Of course a gun is an inert tool that can do nothing of itself. I am employing, constitutional LIFE as a metaphor. Basically stating that conservatives are the LIFE granting force behind why guns can't be limited or eradicated (as tools). 

Without the humans behind the tools, the tools can do nothing. Gun life is in the humans. And of course, like everything else in this world, guns are on a spectrum. Can be used for good on one end and evil on the other end.

By the way, it is important at certain 'breaks' in these kinds of discussions for us on either side of an issue to recognize that generally-speaking we know that those with a differing opinion have some basis in fact for the positions they take. Albeit, drowned out by so many 'swells' and 'noises' of outrage and disbelief. There is always that 'kernel' and 'nugget' of truth that must be remembered and dwelt on.

How many perpetrators of the 'epidemic of gun violence' have CCW permits?

It is a good question, even if treated as rhetorical.

The conservative majority on the SC is messing up!

Totally agree. As it stands now, it's almost entirely criminals that are causing the gun violence. Up until now the only thing keeping law abiding citizens from doing the same thing has been New York's ridiculously strict restrictions on concealed carry. Now that the SCOTUS as fixed that, law abiding citizens are probably at this very moment, carrying concealed with the intent to go out and just start shooting people. It's going to be a disaster!

(Yes. This is sarcasm.)

You posted that as sarcasm, but if you read what NY Gov. Hochul said, she's very much inline with what you typed.  It seems that the push against the opinion resides on the belief that EVERYBODY who carries concealed is going to go nuts and start to shoot up everything they see.  

"Does everyone understand what a concealed weapon means? That you have no forewarning that someone can hide a weapon on them and go into our subways, going to our grocery stores, like stores up in Buffalo, New York, where I'm from," she continued. "This decision isn't just reckless. It's reprehensible. foxnews

If you take partisan politics out of the statement, then you are left with the belief that everybody in the world is crazy and just a hair-trigger event away from killing people. If they truly believe that then how can they allow ANYBODY to be out in public for fear they may go off the deep end and start killing everybody around them.  

The pushback on this just feels like partisan politics to me rather than thoughtful discussion.

"Does everyone understand what a concealed weapon means? That you have no forewarning that someone can hide a weapon on them and go into our subways, going to our grocery stores, like stores up in Buffalo, New York, where I'm from," she continued. "This decision isn't just reckless. It's reprehensible."

Conveniently forgetting that criminals are running around packing concealed heat all the time. Absolute infringement of the 2nd Amendment

Well,. . . that is the equivalent of saying, since criminals don't obey laws. . .why should anybody at all obey laws. Damn all the laws! Damn all the safeguards! Damn all the defenders! Let everybody do what is right in his or her own eyes. (Where have I heard that before?)

Do understand me, nevertheless. I am loosely throwing out my thoughts, because I am kind of numb to the gun question/debate. It's "too much" all the time. Live. Die. WHATEVER.

You posted that as sarcasm, but if you read what NY Gov. Hochul said, she's very much inline with what you typed.

Yep. What the Left doesn't get is that it ignores reality completely. The people who are carrying concealed and shooting people are the ones who are criminals. The ones who aren't supposed to have them at all, let alone concealed. So, all NY has done is prevent citizens who obey the law and don't carry to be victims of those who don't obey the law and carry concealed. This completely escapes them, apparently. 

Put another way, if she fears ordinary, law abiding citizens are now going to go around gunning people down now that SCOTUS says they can CC she now has to explain why they would bother waiting on SCOTUS in the first place if they were the types to go gunning people down. 

Well, she does have to run for re-election in November so I can understand why she's going so hard left on this subject.  

I am however anxiously waiting for her next press conference to see how well her security detail has taken to their new muskets.

I am however anxiously waiting for her next press conference to see how well her security detail has taken to their new muskets.

Now that's funny!

Well, she does have to run for re-election in November so I can understand why she's going so hard left on this subject. 

Yeah, that's probably all it really boils down to. I'm sure she's completely aware that what she is saying is nonsense but, hey, if it works on her constituents.....

And yet they are in tune with most states ...... that have unrestricted or shall issue CPL laws.

Thats over 80% of states by the way.

A super, super majority.

You lose .....

Disgusting. 

They are the most partisan court ever. This law is over 100 years old. It has been upheld by both courts that had conservative majorities and liberal majorities as being worthy. So much for states having the rights to self-determination. 

They just blew the state rights theory out of the water.

They just blew the state rights theory out of the water.

No state has the right to counter the Constitution.

So you are saying states do not have a right to regulate weapons?

We were not. You can own a gun in NY no problem. Apparently, states have no rights with this partisan court.

They just blew the state rights theory out of the water.

The SCOTUS didn't do that.  The constitution did.  

Perrie, it's not a partisan Court. You and I live in very partisan states. 

They ruled correctly. New York and MA had NO RIGHT to ask people to explain why they needed to carry a gun.

So you are saying states do not have a right to regulate weapons?

Obviously, I'm saying what I just said. No state may enact a law that counters what is in the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause:

Article VI , Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

law.cornell

Perrie, it's not a partisan Court.

Are you effing serious? 

So you are saying gun control is exclusive to the feds?

I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is clear. The only way to change it is by another Constitutional Amendment. I wouldn't care if we banned all the guns. We either follow our laws or we have chaos.

The Heller decision ruled that guns can be regulated. I guess that decision was thrown out the window.

You still don't get it, do you.

States can regulate, but they can't overturn the 2nd Amendment in the process. And on this issue I agree with liberals on their goal, but not on the process. That is a never ending problem with the left. They seem to think they are on the side of the Angels, thus the end justifies the means.

I meant a partisan court.

So you are saying that anyone everywhere should carry a gun and the only way to stop it is a constitutional amendment...

Bullcrap.

This court is ignoring all precedent before it.

The Heller decision ruled that guns can be regulated. I guess that decision was thrown out the window.

Nope.

states will still be able to require lics /permits 

will still be able to ban certain firearms and accessories 

will still be able to require training in order to get said permits or lics .

What they WONT be able to do is enact a defacto ban by using the lic/permit system with a need for the individual to show any special need over and above what would be considered a normalreason to carry,IE a specific and identifiable threat .

People act as if this is not all completely arbitrary.       Why should someone have to explain why they think it's okay to yell fire in a crowded theater?   Why should people have to explain why they think it's okay to call for the assassination of a public figure?   Don't they just have those rights under the first amendment?                  Every supreme Court ruling is an interpretation of the Constitution,. Every one.         There is no such thing as an obvious bipartisan course of decision making in the supreme Court the sooner the public realizes that the better.

I meant a partisan court.

Yes, and I am agreeing with you. 

will still be able to require training

Only after they open the Voter Academy for mandatory instruction.

States can regulate, but they can't overturn the 2nd Amendment in the process.

It has never been overturned. You can buy and own guns in NY.

New York and MA had NO RIGHT to ask people to explain why they needed to carry a gun.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the NY law go further than that?  I thought it wasn't just needing to explain why they needed / wanted to carry concealed,  they also had to be in a job / position  that would put them at greater risk.  As a news story I read went, a NY official stated that if someone said they ride the subway home from work and must walk thru a high-crime area at night to get home, that alone was not sufficient reason to grant a concealed carry permit.  Basically, the desire for self-protection was not sufficient reason.  That's why I thought SCOTUS ruled against it, because in practice the NY law was preventing people from being able to protect themselves. 

You can buy and own guns in NY.

And this SCOTUS case had nothing to do with buying and owning guns in the State of NY.  It was solely focused on the process where the state granted conceal carry permits to people.  

Why is it partisan to follow the Constitution?


 This law is over 100 years old.

It needed a case to get it before the Supreme Court. We had the same law in MA. I can remember somebody telling me that it was hard to get a gun because one had to explain why one wanted one to the police. That never smelled right.

You want to change the 2nd Amendment, it can be done according to the Constitution.

Why is it partisan to follow the Constitution?

Because we are following the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. You can purchase a gun and own a gun with no problems. The Constitution does not guarantee open carry. Somehow, this law lasted over 100 years through all kinds of courts but this one comes in and is forcing the states to do what they want. The states not having rights is also against the Constitution, too, Vic. 

It violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.


The states not having rights is also against the Constitution, too, Vic. 

States have rights to things which do not conflict with the Constitution.

BTW, I know all of NY's high ranking elected officials are outraged. They are extremists.

States have rights to things which do not conflict the Constitution.

So if a state wants to, they could close all gun shops, except for one, and all it can sell is BB guns, correct? 

This was about someone having the freedom to arm themselves outside their homes to protect themselves.

Please show where the 2nd Amendment specifies the ability to carry CONCEALED in public.

Here, this will help.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You answered your own question:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

BTW, I know all of NY's high ranking elected officials are outraged. They are extremists.

Everyone left of your opinions are extremist.

BTW, I know all of NY's high ranking elected officials are outraged. They are extremists.

They have the right to own guns and to use them. They need to provide a reason to carry them around. 

They need to provide a reason to carry them around. 

What do you think that the right to bear arms means?

It would seem so, but didn't you just call 6 Supreme Court Justices "partisan?"

They need to provide a reason to carry them around. 

I'm afraid not Perrie. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear.

What is considered a "Good Reason" ?

Let's talk on where that could lead. If you own & operate a Limousine company, the police could deny you and your crew guns because of the possibility of "road rage." You see, in MA it was very difficult to conceal & carry. I'm not a gun advocate, but I always kind of knew it was wrong.

The first amendment simply States Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech.  that's all it says about freedom of speech .   that we do have laws that restrict freedom of speech under certain circumstances is because that's the way the amendment has been interpreted by various supreme Court rulings. The idea that the court could not interpret the second amendment to allow restrictions on how guns can be owned and displayed in public is ridiculous.       This ruling today is not solely based on the Constitution it's based on the political wishes of the constituency of conservative justices.

Our second Amendment is open to intervention, or had we not seen that before. It used to be to form a militia... chip chip chip...

The 2nd Amendment is quite clear.

Especially that well regulated Militia part, no ?

I am calling 5 out of the 6 partisans. Roberts is the only one who actually decides based on the law and not his agenda.

I hate coy questions like that. Our law is out there and is very specific as to what are good reasons.

The first amendment simply States Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech.

First of all the First Amendment involves more than just freedom of speech. That Amendment has long been, until recently, held sacred by right, left and everything in between.


that we do have laws that restrict freedom of speech under certain circumstances is because that's the way the amendment has been interpreted by various supreme Court rulings.

No john, it's because the left now wants to limit speech.


The idea that the court could not interpret the second amendment to allow restrictions on how guns can be owned and displayed in public is ridiculous.     

The 2nd Amendment is very specific. The left has never treated it as such. After today's ruling they will have to.


 This ruling today is not solely based on the Constitution it's based on the political wishes of the constituency of conservative justices.

That's your opinion. There are only two ways to solve it: A Constitutional Amendment or insurrection. What will it be?

Of course they do or they wouldn't spend so much time and effort detailing minutiae of the Constitution based on things that are simply not in there. A ruling like Heller is not simply acknowledging the text of the Constitution. The text of the second amendment is very ambiguous but a conservative Court attempted to claim that the meaning is obvious. That is simply not objectively true.     Now the same sort of conservative Court wants to claim that it's obvious that gun rights cannot be restricted. There is no objective basis for that decision either . it's a political decision.

They are the justices who go by the Constitution as written, not by how it should be or how times have changed or any other emotion.

Perrie, the answer is a Constitutional Amendment.

No it's not. For 50 years we had radical justices tampering with the Constitution. Did you see Clarence Thomas opinion?  He said it best:

 "Previously, these courts engaged in what Thomas dismisses as “means-end scrutiny,” asking whether the law is carefully tailored to promote an important state interest."


It's over Perrie. We are back to the Constitution.

Nonsense.

What a retort!

Where's my pen?

No one cares what token Thomas has to say or Ginni, the one who actually pulls the strings or wears the pants in that family.  

That's the mindset where people say this conceal & carry law could save lives, thus we illegally enact it and try and get away with it...for the greater good.

Well, Tess, you better care because he is in the majority now.

It's over Perrie. We are back to the Constitution.

Are you kidding? We never forgot the Constitution. What we have is a partisan court. Let's go back 200 years... oh wait... then guns were to form a militia.  

Nope.  No one cares about Token Thomas or his batshit crazy wife who was involved with 1/6/21 so therefore so was he.

P.S. don't call me Tess.  That's reserved for people I like.  

That's the mindset where people say this conceal & carry law could save lives, thus we illegally enact it and try and get away with it...for the greater good.

IN NYC????? A shot out on our crowded streets. Give me a break.

Now the same sort of conservative Court wants to claim that it's obvious that gun rights cannot be restricted.

The reason that Heller made it to SCOTUS was the D. C. Circuit Court found that that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

oh wait... then guns were to form a militia. 

It was written in those times, but until we have a Constitutional Amendment it stands. Otherwise we are going to have more Jan 6th riots. The real partisans have been a stain on this country and the rule of law. The side you seem to think is "non-partisan" has done all the damage. 

We either believe in the law or a revolution will come, regardless of how many FBI agents infiltrate private groups. 

. then guns were to form a militia.  

What did militia mean in 1789?

Give me a break Vic. I am not calling for riots. That is a very extreme and misrepresentation of what I am saying.

But hey I get it. You got the conservative court you wanted that is interpreting the law in a conservative fashion. 

We either believe in the law or a revolution will come, regardless of how many FBI agents infiltrate private groups. 

Funny, I don't remember you feeling that way with a more balanced court. 

. then guns were to form a militia.  

What did militia mean in 1789?

IDK? What do you think a militia meant in 1789?

IN NYC?????

The very place where $1 Billion was slashed from the NYPD budget

cnn .


The very place where " 73 officers died in felonious killings in the line of duty in 2021, according to preliminary year-end data provided to CNN by the FBI. It was the highest total recorded by the agency since 1995, excluding the 9/11 attacks."

cnn

The very place where police officers were humiliated not long ago.

cbsnews



A shot out on our crowded streets. Give me a break.

NYC has a serious problem and it came from the left.

All adult white males physically capable of carrying a weapon.

Give me a break Vic. I am not calling for riots. That is a very extreme and misrepresentation of what I am saying.

I didn't say you were. I'm saying it's a growing danger as long as the left keeps ignoring the law!


But hey I get it. You got the conservative court you wanted that is interpreting the law in a conservative fashion. 

That is right. I have a Court that interprets the law as written. That's what the Court is supposed to do.


Funny, I don't remember you feeling that way with a more balanced court. 

What do you mean by balanced? Does that mean 4 strict Constructionists, 4 left wing radicals and a Chief Justice who wants to play nice?

P.S. don't call me Tess.

What shall I call you? 

[deleted]

You're welcome not to address me at all.  

How about if I put you on ignore and we assign 3 mods to make sure I don't forget?

Ok, that works for me.

What gets me is all the people cheering on this decision, none of them live in NY.

I live in MA. We have the same law...or should I say "had"

Let's go back 200 years... oh wait... then guns were to form a militia.  

200 years ago thats not all they were used for , other things would include 

self defense , which the right to do that existed before the 2nd was even conceived and the need for still exists today 

and 

sustinance, putting food on the table so one could eat  , though its not really aneed but more the choice of the individual .

protection of property, that could be real property or livestock , predators come both in 2 and 4 legged form even today 

Dueling pistols were also in fashion. Should we bring that back?

While you can still purchase dueling pistols, they are pricy as they are now collectors items.  And dueling to the death is illegal in the USA, according to this site there are only five places in the world where dueling to the death is not illegal.

wearethemighty

It wasn't back then. I mean if we are going to go back in time...

But this ruling does not take us back in time.  It clarifies how the State of NY was over-burdening individuals in their choice for self-defense, and corrects the issue.

That is all true, and ask our upstaters if that is still true, and they would say yes.

And I suppose the next law they try to pass will face the same fate.

Just what NYC needs. A bunch of people with concealed weapons...

NYC already has bunches of people who carry concealed, the issue is that a lot of them are criminals and felons who should not have guns in their possession in the first place.  

It seems that those who are against this ruling are doing so because of the fear that law abiding people who can now get their conceal carry permits will go insane and start shooting up the streets.  That IMO is an unreasonable fear that has no basis.  

We saw the same type of fear pushed when Georgia relaxed their conceal carry laws to allow people to carry concealed even in a bar.  The fear that was pushed was that people were going to get drunk and start shoot-outs in their nightly watering holes.  Of course that hasn't happened but the fear sure was pushed.  This IMO is much the same.  The fear that with more people able to legally carry concealed that it will just increase gun deaths.  

Where is it originally written in the Constitution that gun rights cannot be regulated?

I live in MA. We have the same law...or should I say "had"

I live in CT.  We have open and conceal carry if you get a permit and saying target practice or protection is enough.  If a democrat run state like CT can do it without a problem Mass, NY or all the rest should be able to also.

They already are.  

There about a dozen federal laws that automatically preclude Americans from owning most guns.    One can’t be a felon for example.

The fear is people will decide to take justice into their own hands.

The fear is in people that think they have to have a gun to be safe.

Carrying in a bar is one of the dumbest things I ever heard. Even in my backwater state that is not allowed.

I have said for years it should be up to the states and local municipalities to decide and now that seems to be a misnomer.

The republicans tout state rights all the time yet on something like this, all the sudden it is the feds in charge...

Do you not understand how you are over-reacting here?  You are allowing fear to override common sense here.  The ability to legally carry concealed has nothing at all to do with a person's ability to decide to take justice into their own hands, or to believe that they must have a gun to be safe.  You have no idea how many people around you on a daily basis may be carrying concealed, but I'm confident it's many more than you suspect.  

I have said for years it should be up to the states and local municipalities to decide and now that seems to be a misnomer. The republicans tout state rights all the time yet on something like this, all the sudden it is the feds in charge...

Yet this ruling has nothing to do with taking away from states rights, but correcting a state that went too far and over-burdened an individuals right to self defense. The NY concealed carry permit process is linked below, you should take the time to read it.  It clearly states that 'Self-protection is not a sufficient need for the issuance of a carry concealed license.'  This clearly exceeds the ability for a person to self-protection as laid out in the 14th Amendment.

sheriff.ongov

Additional partisan fears as stated by Senator Sherrod Brown.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told Fox News that the ruling was a "radical decision by an increasingly radicalized Supreme Court."

"The country doesn't want a kid on his 18th birthday to be able to walk into a gun store with no real background checks, with no waiting period and buy a weapon and conceal that weapon and shoot a lot of people in a short period of time," Brown said.

foxnews

Again, the ruling from SCOTUS does absolutely nothing to change how a person can legally purchase a gun.  It does not change or prevent the State of NY from requiring people from being licensed to carry concealed, it does not prevent the state from requiring training before any such license can be issued, it does not change the legal requirements for anybody to possess a gun.  All it does is clarify that the State of NY went too far in their restrictions of who can get a concealed carry license and over-burdened their citizens who wanted to carry concealed as per their rights under the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

NYC does not have a serious problem from the left since our old mayor left.

"They need to provide a reason to carry them around."

That's the gist of the decision. Who gave the state this power?

"it's a political decision."

So was Roe.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So you are claiming that this implies CONCEALED?  For a person that likes to ask where the word "abortion" is in the Constitution, you fail to show where the word "concealed" is.

The law only spoke to conceal carry, not open carry.  So the law does not infringe on the people's right to keep or bear arms.

It takes away the states and city ability to do what they think is best for themselves.

I am not the one in fear. I am not the one that thinks, OMG I have to carry a gun!

If you ask me, the 14th should have nothing to do with it. The 14th was made to give ex slaves equal rights and protection under the law.

Where is it originally written in the Constitution that gun rights cannot be regulated?

Right in front of your eyeballs:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


A militia can be regulated by congress. That is mentioned elsewhere.

So you are claiming that this implies CONCEALED? 

It is the plain language of the time it was written. Concealed is a category that belongs to the 20th Century and these states who made this conceal & carry laws.Finding concealed in the original wording would have to be your job. The founders made no such distinction.

This was 10 years in coming. People who are fair can be against guns, like I am, yet defend the law as written, as I do.

The 14th Amendment did more than that.  It also restated the supremacy clause.   It stated “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”   If a citizen is not legally forbidden from his 2nd Amendment rights,  the 14th Amendment again shows that the State may not deprive him of his rights without due process of law.  The way the process was set up in NY was definitely set to prevent the average person from being able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and his right to self-protection.

It wasn't just your old mayor. Your new governor turned out to be a radical and your 2 Senators tilt to the far left and of course you have AOC. The worst part is that the NY State Legislature, which once kept the radical ideas from becoming law is now under democrat control. I'm not here to bash New York, but all of that states problems were created by the people who were elected.

Back to the topic of this article:  The gun law you had and that I, in my state, had was unconstitutional.  I wish we could ban guns, but you have to amend the 2nd Amendment!

It did not take away a right. People in NY can still have guns. It prevented a lot of people from walking around town with them.

It prevented a lot of people from walking around town with them.

Yes, law abiding citizens.  Criminals and felons were never prevented because they never tried to go for a license.

Imagine if you were a 20 something female nurse who works in a NYC hospital.  You ride the subway to get to and from work, you work swing shift and you have to walk alone at night to get to your home which unfortunately is in an area of elevated crime because you live where  you can afford to.  You've done nothing wrong yet the process is set up to deny you the license so that you can conceal carry to protect yourself.  Is that the right thing to do?

This is what the process was set up to do, to prevent the law abiding citizen from obtaining a license to conceal carry.  It did nothing to stop a law breaker from carrying a gun.  

And please re-read my comment.  I didn't say it took away a right, the process was set to to prevent a person from exercising conceal carry and as such impacted their ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Not directed at you but I get sick of the criminals have guns shit. Criminals break laws not just about guns. Imo that is a bullshit excuse. Why they are called criminals to begin with.

You really think if someone pointed a gun on this nurse riding the subway she is going to have time to pull out her gun from where ever it is concealed and shoot the perp that already has his weapon pointed?

Should concealed guns be allowed in a football stadium? Concert events on a town square?

I mean after all, we don't want to infringe on their ability to exercise their right...

All you are saying is that just because someone cannot carry a weapon around 24/7 somehow their right is taken away.

Criminals and felons were never prevented because they never tried to go for a license.

And therein lies the rub. The conclusion of the matter is not to limit guns everywhere, but to take for granted that mythical (out-sized)  criminals have all the guns (firepower) they need to take over cities, towns, and states. That the states can not control criminal elements and the accompanied onslaughts and attack. Thus, the people must act to do so by arming themselves. I don't see that in California with its large population. Is that the fear somewhere?

I'm sorry. But if this country becomes known as "Gun Culture Central" in the world won't it affect tourism? What happens when not if our "indulgences" or failure to find a peaceful state of existence in the long-term causes this country its exceptional reputation?

Yes, I am 'reaching' here. But the world's outlook can turn on us for any number or accumulating set of reasons and factors.

No, you have misconstrued what I said.

You really think if someone pointed a gun on this nurse riding the subway she is going to have time to pull out her gun from where ever it is concealed and shoot the perp that already has his weapon pointed?

Obviously no,  if you have a gun already pointed directly at you then your options are very limited.  Just as obvious, just because someone is carrying concealed that does not mean they are 100% safe.  I never said anything like that so I would appreciate if you not carry out a stupid argument like that.

Should concealed guns be allowed in a football stadium? Concert events on a town square?

This sort of activity is already restricted.  Again, why go there? Why the strawman argument when these sorts of activities are already covered.

All you are saying is that just because someone cannot carry a weapon around 24/7 somehow their right is taken away.

Again, enough with the strawman.  Do the research into what is required to get a conceal carry license in New York City, find out how difficult it is to obtain one.  That's all this ruling is about, that NY placed an undue burden on citizens who wanted to get a conceal carry license and that the undue burden was unconstitutional.  That's all it did.  

All you are saying is that just because someone cannot carry a weapon around 24/7 somehow their right is taken away.

Again, NO!!!   Read again what this seed is all about.  This seed is about how SCOTUS ruled that the process that New York had set up to grant a concealed carry license is unconstitutional and places an undue burden on the citizen.  That's all the ruling was about.  This constant strawman argument that continues to push bullshit that is not part of the SCOTUS ruling has gotten out of hand. 

But isn't what the SCOTUS decided going to open up concealed carry to 'regular' folks. There is no strict scrutiny circumstance or special category, right or wrong?

How is it a strawman? Why should certain places be restricted and others not? What to you is undue burden?

Of course it was made difficult as to stop a lot of people from walking around the city with guns.

Should it be so easy everyone can get one? That seems to be the direction some want to take.

That quote is not from me. Sorry. But I did just now ask a somewhat similar comment below about the opinion. That said, don't get frustrated if you have read the decision (which I have done thanks to Vic's summary of it), share what you know in general. We don't all have the time in the moment. It's okay to help out each other! Psst. I know you did not write the opinion or create the problem being dealt with.

Please read the following link, it explains what the proper cause for a concealed carry license is and what is required by the State.  It clearly states..

'Self-protection is not a sufficient need for the issuance of a carry concealed license.' sheriff.ongov

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, the 'regular' folk who are still law abiding, were basically prevented from being able to obtain a conceal carry license unless they fit into special categories, such as a gunsmith or firearms dealer, a messenger employed by a banking institution, judges and justices, employed in the jewelry business.  If you wanted for self defense you were suggested to get an on-premise permit that allowed you to have a gun in your home only.

The SCOTUS ruling said the current process that New York had set up places an undue burden on people from obtaining a conceal carry license.  They strictly limited the ability to only specific job types and ignored others.  Should not the desire for self-protection be sufficient to request a conceal carry license?  That doesn't mean the state cannot put other requirements on it, just as background checks, license fees, advance training and/or annual training.  But to just blanket deny the license request just because  someone wants to protect themselves?  

sheriff.ongov

sorry, copy/paste error.  But the rest of my comment still applies.  The ruling from SCOTUS does not change anything with who can legally buy guns, who can legally possess guns.  Doesn't change that criminals / felons are still not allowed to possess guns.  And it does nothing to change tourism or to change the potential that anybody could be shot by a criminal on the streets.  All the ruling did was state that the process set up by New York to grant a concealed carry license was unconstitutional because it placed an undue burden on the average person.  It didn't change the other requirements that a person must also fulfill to get said license, all it said is that the state has to allow everybody due consideration.  The simple issue that New York does not consider self-protection to be a valid reason for requesting a concealed carry license should say it all.  New York has created a special class of people who can get said license and a lower class of people who are all law abiding and responsible but are denied the same license.  That is an unconstitutional action.

So basically I was right. What is wanted is to let anyone have one that wants one. I mean after all, anyone can say they want protection.

It possibly changed the city atmosphere around guns.

They are basically setting the precedent that anyone anywhere can carry.

It doesn't change any of the other requirements.  You've said that before and that's just not true as the applicant still has to meet all other requirements that NY has for a concealed carry license.  I don't know all the particulars in NY but they must pass a background check, a legal check, pay the fee.  There may be a training requirement before the license is issued.  It also doesn't prevent NY from placing further requirements on license holders, provided it places those requirements on ALL license holders.

All it does is stop treating ordinary citizens like second-class citizens.  And really, what is so bad about that?

What you said should be regulations just to purchase a gun Imo, no matter conceal.

I am of the thought that yes, it should be up to the town etc. Either way. If one town wants no inner city guns so be it. If another town does, so be it.

We are not going to agree on this really so I see no point in trying to continue.

We both know where the other stands.  Haha

I read it. Thank  you.

I see this point. Thank you.

I can see this point, too.

I do concede the point Snuffy is making, nevertheless.

The U.S. Constitution is one thing, what New York is doing is another - on a separate track. Loosely stated (by me), the constitution grants a right and a privilege to establish a gun culture, while New York legislature is trying to structure a limited gun culture by design. It's two different 'ends' and will require the legislature (politics) to get involved yet again.

Interestingly, the very last paragraph on the New York "Proper Cause for a Carry Concealed Pistol License" mentions getting the legislature to change its law if one wants to 'carry' for self-defense.

But, being fair, Snuffy has a vaild point in my opinion.

I already brought back derringers , mine is a simple 2 shot single action chambered in 45 colt and .410 shotshell , i can use slugs , buckshot goose shot or bird shot .

 i fancy large bird shot for the first shot , right in the face ,  at the distance i expect to use it , they will be blind most likely deaf , have no face and be screaming in a puddle of their own fluids on the ground before they realize what happened and die slowly , any compatriots they may have have to face the 45 colt round which through the derringer is good out to 20 ft for accuracy .

 element of surprise actually does work , one must have a plan and work the plan .

First of all, could you please back up those numbers and don't include our police.

Then we can talk about our angst.

While I can agree that people can now better defend themselves against attack with a gun acceptable policy of some kind - it will definitely increase the placement of such guns under more articles of clothing and on bodies. Think of it this way, when abortion was legalized more people receive them, when/where marijuana is legal more people smoke it, and when same-sex marriage was instituted well homosexuals 'rejoiced' and got astronomically busy clearing those hurdles to long-term relationships. All as a consequence of government approval.

That is all we're saying here. Whether an x factor number of guns were par for the course before, now the legitimate number of concealed carry numbers will 'come out of the shadows and into the light so to speak.

And from your perspective and may be mine too when I think about it that may not be a bad thing after the initial shock!

I have NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE WALK AROUND ARMED IN NYC, AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Exactly. 

But I am not naive enough to believe that some people are not armed, whether NY approved of it or not.

Huh?

It seems like an unreasonable position to me--denying people the right to defend themselves.

Because all those guns in Texas with your open carry laws, really helped those kids in Robb Elementary School, 37 killed or injured. Where were all those good guys?

I don't believe that no one is carrying in NYC because of what the law was. With over 8 million people, I really don't think it too far-fetched to think that maybe 2-300,000 may be carrying.

I think your estimates may be high.

I know you will realize that is a pretty cheap shot and totally uncalled for.

Cheap shot maybe... 

That would be akin to me saying your NY law really helped all those people in Buffalo, right?

And thank you for taking it there. It appears that more guns don't make anyone safer, does it, so it totally befuddles me when people say, more guns make it safer. Apparently not, and apparently concealed open carry didn't help that school in Buffalo either, and neither did any law-abiding citizen.

You mean besides the criminals?

Not the criminals. They don't give a shit about laws.

I am sure criminals are thankful for New York turning all law abiding citizens into easy victims. 

And thank you for taking it there. It appears that more guns don't make anyone safer, does it, so it totally befuddles me when people say, more guns make it safer. Apparently not, and apparently concealed open carry didn't help that school in Buffalo either, and neither did any law-abiding citizen.

And thank you for taking it in that direction.    A very disingenuous direction indeed.    All it would have taken was one legal CCW holder to stop that shooter.     One thing is for sure.    That one CCW holder never would have had a chance to help if they could not have legally carried concealed there in the first place.

By the way.    Where is the smoking gun that legal CCW holders in this country are a threat to society?    Other than offending some delicate sensibilities that is.

and apparently concealed open carry didn't help that school in Buffalo either

Was there another shooting in Buffalo at a school? I only heard about the one at the supermarket.

 All it would have taken was one legal CCW holder to stop that shooter.     One thing is for sure.    That one CCW holder never would have had a chance to help if they could not have legally carried concealed there in the first place.

Except there were plenty in Texas and nothing happened.

By the way.    Where is the smoking gun that legal CCW holders in this country are a threat to society?    Other than offending some delicate sensibilities that is.

I'm not worried about the average person. I am worried about the criminal element. I am worried about the guy who thinks he is a hero and starts a shootout on the streets of Manhattan. 

I am not anti-gun. But every time I have a discussion like this with people who feel that there are no limitations to the 2nd, it makes me want to be anti-gun.

Was there another shooting in Buffalo at a school? I only heard about the one at the supermarket.

Sorry, I meant supermarket. It was late.... I really shouldn't respond when it is late, LOL. 

Just ribbin' ya. And I know the feeling LOL

All it would have taken was one legal CCW holder to stop that shooter.     One thing is for sure.    That one CCW holder never would have had a chance to help if they could not have legally carried concealed there in the first place.

Except there were plenty in Texas and nothing happened.

Except Robb Elementary was a gun free zone so a CCW holder could not legally carry in that school.  That shooting was a horrendous crime that should not have happened and there were many failures that led up to it happening. But I don't think it's right to conflate the shooting with CCW holders which could not legally be on campus armed in the first place.

Except there were plenty in Texas and nothing happened.

The only absolute involved here is if one is not allowed to carry, there will be NO chance of stopping shooters like in Texas.    There is no silver bullet to fix every possibility that is not tyrannical to law abiding citizens.    Concealed carry is an awesome responsibility.    One that most take so seriously they will never pull and use their weapon let alone actually carry one concealed.    The Texas shooting is a good example of that.

By the way.    Where is the smoking gun that legal CCW holders in this country are a threat to society?    Other than offending some delicate sensibilities that is.

I'm not worried about the average person. I am worried about the criminal element. I am worried about the guy who thinks he is a hero and starts a shootout on the streets of Manhattan. 

I am not anti-gun. But every time I have a discussion like this with people who feel that there are no limitations to the 2nd, it makes me want to be anti-gun.

And I am not anti gun control but every time I have a discussion like this, with people who don’t really understand law abiding gun ownership, I become more and more anti gun control.

The boobs in Washington could no more enact real and fair common sense gun control than they could pass a balanced budget.    Most are clueless on the topic.    On both sides.

I know in Michigan you can’t legally carry in schools.    Wasn’t sure about Texas.

Texas a couple of years back changed their law to allow for CCW licensed to conceal carry on college campus but that was it.  Elementary and high schools are still gun free zones.

guides.sll.texas

It's okay. We all are only human at the end of the day!

Where is it originally written in the Constitution that gun rights cannot be regulated?

I can't believe you even asked this John....

SECOND AMENDMENT? Passed by the same convention that created the constitution itself because more states than not wanted guarantees on what the new government CANNOT DO..... (before they approved it) It was passed before the constitution was ever approved by the states and became the law...

States can regulate but they CANNOT ELIMINATE a constitutionally protected right... THAT was the purpose of creating the Bill of Rights to make it perfectly clear the limits on federal power...

NY's 100 yr old law effectively eliminated a RIGHT through overregulation, the right to possess and carry a legally owned firearm...

Concealed carry can be regulated, I do not have a problem with that, but using concealed carry to completely eliminate or qualify a god given and federally protected right? (the right to self defense) Should have been dealt with 100 years ago....

Better late than never...

I am not anti-gun. But every time I have a discussion like this with people who feel that there are no limitations to the 2nd, it makes me want to be anti-gun.

One question? why does the conversation always have to be absolutist?

his law is over 100 years old.

Which is the exact argument you made to oppose abortion legalization and gay marriage, right? 

I never discussed gay marriage. I did discuss abortion but I never said anything about the amount of time it was law. I talked about women's rights, and when is life. 

But nice try.

I never discussed gay marriage. I did discuss abortion but I never said anything about the amount of time it was

Well whether you discussed it or not the principle is the same.  If you believe what you said, you would oppose the cases that found a Constitutional right  to gay marriage and abortion on the grounds that they overturned statutes that were just as old. 

Well whether you discussed it or not the principle is the same.  If you believe what you said, you would oppose the cases that found a Constitutional right  to gay marriage and abortion on the grounds that they overturned statutes that were just as old.

Apple and pears Sean. One is a state law on our books for over 100 years, and the other has to do with relatively new Constitutional decisions. And even the abortion decision stood the test of a conservative court. What we have now are a pile of conservative activist. Of course, you are happy.

One is a state law on our books for over 100 years, and the other has to do with relatively new Constitutional decision

What are you talking about? All the decisions I mentioned  overturned state laws that were on the books for over 100 years.  There's no difference between the state abortion statutes the Court overturned and your statute in New York, other than you like one and not the other. 

Your standard is that laws you like are constitutional  , those you don't are unconstitutional.  No point in pretending otherwise.

Look Sean, I knew that when I came onto your seed, nothing I would say would be good enough. Par for the course. 

What are you talking about? All the decisions I mentioned  overturned state laws that were on the books for over 100 years.

This gun law was a state law. Roe v Wade was decided as the law of the land by SCOTUS and while there were other state laws, they were all either left to stand or struck down by Roe v Wade. 

And I'm sorry, but I seem to remember you not liking court rulings and complaining that they were not Constitutional. 

My point is that this should fall under federal powers and not the 2nd.

Your standard is that laws you like are constitutional  , those you don't are unconstitutional. No point in pretending otherwise.

You are freaking rude and condescending. No point in pretending otherwise.

My opinions are based on past opinions. Hence why I rarely get involved in gun laws. My opinion on this is that this falls under federal jurisdiction and had it not, it would have been struck down a long time ago. But hey, you got your activist judges doing what YOU want, so to hell with the rest of us.

I'm done talking to you.

seed, nothing I would say would be good enough. Par for the course. 

I don't care what people's opinions are, but I believe they should be based on consistent principles and facts. When they aren't I wonder why. 

This gun law was a state law. Roe v Wade was decided as the law of the land by SCOTUS

Why are you making this ridiculous argument?  Roe v Wade overturned the Texas State abortion law (and dozens of others).  Just like this case overturned a New York State law (and only 5 others). The idea that there is some sort of fundamental difference in what the Court did has zero basis in reality.  

y point is that this should fall under federal powers and not the 2nd.

I don't know what that means.  The Constitution  is the ultimate federal power. How you can divorce federal powers from the Constitution on are beyond me. 

You are freaking rude and condescending

 I'm simply pointing our the only coherent principle that would explain your reasoning. You based your attack on the Justices because they overturned a law with a 100 year history. 

That's fine.

But if you actually believed in that principle, you would apply across the board. But you don't.  It's just a convenient argument because you like gun control laws. 

opinion on this is that this falls under federal jurisdiction and had it not, it would have been struck down a long time ago

I have no idea what you are trying to say.   New York and the 5 other states with similar laws are subject to the Constitution.  I 

I don't care what people's opinions are, but I believe they should be based on consistent principles and facts. When they aren't I wonder why. 

Either you do care, or you don't. For if one's opinion matters, or in your case, doesn't matter, whatever are you left to wonder about, cause like you, one can only state "I wonder why".  

I asked you not to talk to me. 

So much for states having the rights to self-determination. 

Actually I’m all for that but when it comes to rights and liberties, you can’t pick and choose.    It’s all or nothing.

One persons disgusting is another persons righteous.

Shouldn't  people have the right to protect themselves from the bad guys?

They can. They just have to apply for the permit. We just don't want a shoot out in NYC. 

We just don't want a shoot out in NYC. 

Sorry but IMO that is an irrational fear that everybody who had a conceal carry license will pull their gun and shoot anybody they see on the streets.  Or the irrational fear that if a bad guy starts shooting,  good guy1 will pull his weapon and shoot bad guy, then good guy 2 will pull his gun and shoot good guy 1.   That hasn't happened yet where such carry is allowed.

So why does NY State have to make it so difficult to get a concealed carry license?  Why do they assume that nobody needs one in the first place?  Read the process, they make it very difficult and go in with the assumption that you should not have such license.

sheriff.ongov

Gangbangers have drive-bys and shootouts just about every day in most big cities.

Yet you ignore that and fret about what a legal and responsible gun owner might do?

And for the last 40 years, we have not had that problem. In fact, we were the safest city in the US. Gee, I wonder why?

First of all, I don't have an irrational fear about guns, so please don't be condescending. Where are you from? What do you know about life in NYC? 

Even with the permits, it is rare for a good guy to get the bad guys, and believe me, we have a ton of those permits issued in NYC, to shop owners, PI's, and people in the Jewelry business. In fact, I challenge you to find the last time that a gun owner got the bad guy.

So why does NY State have to make it so difficult to get a concealed carry license? 

Because that is what the residents want.

Why do they assume that nobody needs one in the first place?

We don't. We issue them all the time. And I would hardly call that hard to get. You just need to provide a need.

For your information: It is no more my, Perrie, or your problem what "gangbangers" do in any city or how many guns are on the streets. If the government truly did not want "gangbangers" out and about- they could impress upon them a zero-tolerance; do it and you're done, force of attrition policy.

So don't throw governmental policy crap at the general public to solve in these discussions! It is not within the scope of what is being held here. Incidentally, where are the cases going up to the SCOTUS by conservatives to outlaw gang-bangers? Surely, these groups are not constitutional, or are they?

I didn't say you had an irrational fear about guns,  I said that this comment of yours

They just have to apply for the permit. We just don't want a shoot out in NYC. 

Is IMO an irrational fear that assumes that everybody with a conceal carry license is going to get involved in a shoot out in NYC.  

As far as providing a need to obtain the license, why isn't self protection a valid need?  If you are a 20 something female who works at a hospital, rides the subway to get home and walked thru an area with an elevated risk of crime, wouldn't you be concerned with your safety?  Yet according to the process to obtain a conceal carry license, "Self protection is not a sufficient need for the issuance of a carry concealed license".  

The process is set up to grant such licenses to shop owners, PI's, people in the jewelry business, why not regular people?  Are they not also entitled to be safe?  Are they not entitled to self-protection?  I would definitely say that getting such a license is hard to get, that's why SCOTUS gave the ruling it did.  

If the government truly did not want "gangbangers" out and about- they could impress upon them a zero-tolerance;

Didn't NYC have this more under control back in the days of 'Stop & Frisk'?  

I don't know. I have only heard of "Stop and Frisk" never experienced it. Moreover, my point to Greg is stop conflating issues of violence. They are all bad as they are different. We see that they are different when what SCOTUS just did has no impact on gangbangers as groups.

BTW, I will start dispensing to you the respect you have earned for your years of service to our government and to enforcement. Thank you. And thank you for keeping a clean record as the case may be!

So being soft on crime and criminals is your answer to gun violence?

No. That's untrue. And proportionality is not what we're discussing here, is it? It would be another addition.

Is IMO an irrational fear that assumes that everybody with a conceal carry license is going to get involved in a shoot out in NYC.  

Did I say that? No. What I said is that they don't want people who think they can handle going after the bad guys, taking it upon themselves to shoot on crowded city streets. What is good for one place is not good for another.... something the court used to respect.

The process is set up to grant such licenses to shop owners, PI's, people in the jewelry business, why not regular people?  Are they not also entitled to be safe?  Are they not entitled to self-protection? 

NYC has more cops than any other city in the US. Those who are in actual need of a concealed weapon can apply. It is not that hard to get. SCOTUS went overboard and decided something that should have been state's rights.

Snuffy, this is a great point too.  8 Million people + crowded streets can be a real issue.

Is IMO an irrational fear that assumes that everybody with a conceal carry license is going to get involved in a shoot out in NYC.  

Did I say that? No. What I said is that they don't want people who think they can handle going after the bad guys, taking it upon themselves to shoot on crowded city streets. What is good for one place is not good for another.... something the court used to respect.

Ok, you said you didn't say it and I guess you also mean you didn't imply it.  I disagree because I understood it a different way but I will let it go.

Those who are in actual need of a concealed weapon can apply. It is not that hard to get.

This I completely disagree with and am willing to state that it is false.  If the carry concealed license was not that hard to get then SCOTUS would not have ruled that the process NY has in place to obtain the license in the first place as unconstitutional as it places an undue burden on the citizen.  The process itself states that the applicant must show cause for getting the license and the desire for self-protection is not cause.  That is the undue burden.

Those who are in actual need of a concealed weapon can apply. It is not that hard to get.

Not getting in a shoot-out on a crowded city street is a good thing, but doesn't that assume that anybody carrying a gun is in danger of just shooting up the street?  That hasn't happened with licensed responsible gun owners who conceal carry now,  why assume that allowing regular people in NYC to conceal carry is going to increase the occurrence of this happening?  

8M people, crowded intersections and street corners as well as snarled traffic does increase the odds of a shoot-out affecting diners, pedestrians, and patrons.  Your point is valid, nevertheless.

However, what you imply is whether this increase in chances of accidental injury and death is worth the additional 'flood' of gun owners 'carrying.'  Note: Critically important -not all gun-owners are equal in their abilities to aim and shoot.

Additionally implied is up to now that 'burden' of civilian defense has been left to the professionals and other mostly state limited/licensed holders.Though, it can also be required that training for license is necessary.

what i see is the ruling doesnt do or say anything about the state requiring training or about storage or any number of things .

States can still require a lic , can still require training , about the only thing they CANT do is deny a permit/lic solely because the state doesnt think there is just cause .

 of the 9 states that i can think of that are MAY issue , this simply brings those 9 in line with the other 41 states that have shall issue permits and lics unless the person is a prohibitted person from buying or posessing a firearm.

i do have other thoughts but will keep those to myself for now .

Mark,

You buy and own a gun freely in NY. What you have to prove is that you need to carry it everywhere. Are you going to tell me that the SCOTUS had it wrong for over 100 years?

Btw... our cops are very upset over today's ruling. That is something you should understand.

Im saying that the NY law wasnt challenged and the being unchallenged for over 100 years didnt make the law right .

 It just took the right case to make its way to the USSC for judgement .it just took more than 100 years for that case to make its way through the system .

 And actually , i CANT buy a gun in NY just like i cant buy a gun in any other state , i dont live there , i CAN have it sent to an FFL in my home state and buy it there . and even if i did live there ? the guns i do own , most would be illegal by state law . good reason for me not to live there .

And actually , i CANT buy a gun in NY just like i cant buy a gun in any other state , i dont live there , i CAN have it sent to an FFL in my home state and buy it there . and even if i did live there ? the guns i do own , most would be illegal by state law . good reason for me not to live there .

I disagree with you. I know a lot of gun owners, even liberal ones and they had no problem getting their guns. You say "good reason for me not to live here", and I say that is the whole reason for the Federal system. You can choose to live in a state that provides you with what you want.

Perrie , by FEDERAL law , i can not go to NY walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm and walk out with it , i HAVE to have it shipped to my home state to a federal firearms dealer  before i can take posession of it .

I would say those gun owners are all NY state residents as well .

your right , i do choose where i live because i can get what i want .

What you have to prove is that you need to carry it everywhere.

Few state carry laws allow carry everywhere.    Restriction usually apply.    

In  Michigan for example one can’t conceal carry in schools, day care centers, bars that derive most their income from liquor sales and the list goes on.

Mark,

That is because you are an out-of-stater. In-state, we can buy guns outright.

Well, let's see what other "restrictions" will be removed with this ruling. 

You might be surprised and your apparent fear of law abiding citizens is very much unwarranted.

as i can here , but NOT there, which correct me if wrong , you said i CAN do there.

Well, let's see what other "restrictions" will be removed with this ruling

Not likely much , there will still be places it will be illegal to carry even with a permit , places that have a duty to retreat will keep those laws in place , and places will still be able to make themselves into "gun free zones "as is their right and choice .

Until the next lawsuit.

Until the next lawsuit.

and that could take another 100 years to find a case that would get through the system.

I meant that an in-stater can do. We can buy them in any state though.

just have to do the same as me , have them shipped back to the home state .

 the devil is ALWAYS in the details .

Mark,

This discussion is a bit convoluted. If you want to get a firearm, you can buy it right away in your state, or take it across state lines. You can have your gun, correct?

Same for us. Unless you are being hunted down by someone, most people can live within the mild limitations.

In every state in the union, one can not legally purchase or possess a firearm if a person:

1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner issued after a hearing

at which notice was given to the person and at which the person had an opportunity to participate, and includes a finding that the person subject to the order represents a credible threat to the intimate partner or child or the intimate partner OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition,is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms and ammunition.

It appears so ,to be getting convoluted , and thats because what the ruling actually says and does , is either misunderstood or misiterpreted .

 All this ruling does is affect how NY goes about it issuing of CONCEALED carry permits because their current system is a defacto ban which the state cannot do and infringement of the individuals right to choose IF they want to or not  . 

 some of what i have read here allude to "Open carry" which is an entirely differnt form of carry and irrelevant to the ruling OR discussion .

 One either openly carries , which means the firearm is in plain open sight , or they carry concealled , out of plain sight .

 There is NO such thing as concealed open carry , it is one or the other .

 and i seriously doubt that we will be seeing , people wishing permits , strapping down like marshall dillon or lucas mccain , brandishing openly  that which they have .

 now can i say the people of NYC who are normally law abiding , dont break the law on carrying? nope i cant , but as you said the city has 8 million population . it does stand to reason that some might have looked at and do look at that law and ignore it , even though they follow every other law on the books .

the old saying judged by 12  rather than to be carried by 6 comes to mind . they may do it illegally , but they also may never have had to use it either , and they likely wouldnt unless it came down to the perps life or theirs or someone they are with  so i would say that its not just a possability but a probability that some that otherwise follow the law , break that one .

Obviously, that is not enough, since we are the capital of the world.

All this ruling does is affect how NY goes about it issuing of CONCEALED carry permits because their current system is a defacto ban which the state cannot do and infringement of the individuals right to choose IF they want to or not  . 

That is not true. I personally know people who have concealed weapon permits, due to their work. You just have to show cause.

And I know that there is a difference between open carry and concealed.

I agree with the rest of your assessment.

For me, this comes down to a state rights issue. NY does not ban guns. It never has, so the second was not being infringed upon. 

Yet this has bigger implications for rights. First, we ignore state rights and then personal ones. When I hear today Thomas saying that he is planning on going after birth control and gay marriage, on the heels of overturning Wade, I feel like we are going backward. Worse, I feel that our court is setting forth an agenda, and the court was never supposed to do that.

Any libertarian should be appalled. 

Just waxing on sadly. 

That is not true. I personally know people who have concealed weapon permits, due to their work. You just have to show cause.

and what causes justify one to get a permit ? you just said they get them because of the work they do . so they must have proven they have a "just " cause to want to be armed . which is what NYS and NYC have now been told they cannot do .

 and then we get into a "reasonable " cause , what would contitute tthe issuance of a permit under a REASONABLE yet unprovable cause to want to arm ones self ?

As for the 2nd not being infringed , i would venture to say that the court disagreed with you in its ruling the way it did ..

 So the feds are trampling states rights because they saw the state was trampling some individual right , whose rights take presedence? the fed ? state? or individuals ?

I admit to holding some libertarian beliefs , but i also hold some liberal /progressive ( just not enough that its noticable unless one looks ) and some conservative , it all boils down to the issue and subject matter , but you know that from our discussions anyway . And i know your pretty much the same in how you formulate and look at things .

You know whose opinion i miss on this whole issue ? Neales , i KNOW he would have a crap ton to say about recent happenings red .

Clarence Thomas, what can I say. I am aghast of this throw-back to the recesses of why slavery worked in the first place. People like Thomas have as a principle that ideology trumps quality of life issues. Now then, want to see the hypocrisy of this ideologue on display, ask him to rule on the validity or lack thereof of interracial marriage.

Your hyperlink doesn’t work.

It's an underline, not a link.

Oh, well please share a link.  I would like to understand what Thomas was talking about with slavery. 

Find your own link and understand 'away.'  In the meantime it is an honor to share a black icon:

en.wikipedia

The only reference that Google yielded was, “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved,” Thomas writes.”. Is that what you meant?

BTW you black icon link doesn’t work.

Is this opinion, now to say, . . . that LEO won't be able to determine who is "legit" and identifiable through the system carrying a gun on their person? That is, will this dilute the present process and basically make concealed weapons processing defunct or superfluous?

Finally, will peace officers now have to consider everybody a GREATER potential threat than before. (Because that can get to be real interesting and dangerous) quickly.

Mind you, my questions are because I don't know and am seeking answers.

KATHY HOCHUL: "I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices, that the only weapons at that time were muskets. I'm prepared to go back to muskets."

news.yahoo

Let's tell Kathy's security detail the bad news: It's back to Muskets.

I will pay attention to her , when she writes all that down on parchement , with a goose feather quill pen with iron gall ink , written by tallow candle and sent via horse back post , and has it posted in the town square for the town cryer to read ......Ok now im just being a certifiable ass.. call me BRAAAAYdon ....

When they took out Cuomo they thought they were getting a moderate.

You are right Mark, she can't have it both ways. The law is the law.

"As predicted , the Supreme Court handed down a momentous opinion in favor of Second Amendment rights today in  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen . In what will likely prove one of the most important decisions in his illustrious career as a conservative jurist, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 majority opinion that brought greater clarity to this and future challenges under the Second Amendment.

In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in  District of Columbia v. Heller . Two years after Heller, in  McDonald v. City of Chicago , the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

This case concerned concealed-carry restrictions under  N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)  that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts upheld the New York law, but there were ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” New York wanted to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.

Thomas rejected the two-part analysis used by lower courts and held that the presumption must be in favor of the individual right to possess a handgun in public like other rights in the Bill of Rights. The Court held “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.” Accordingly, “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.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul immediately declared “Shocking, absolutely shocking that they have taken away our right to have reasonable restrictions.” The  Claude Rain moment  aside, it was shocking that Hochul would be shocked. Many of us were predicting a major loss for over a year and New York, as usual, litigated a bad case and made more bad law for gun control advocates.

Gov. Hochul added ““This is New York. We don’t back down.” That may be welcomed news for gun rights advocates given the record in cases like this one in reinforcing Second Amendment rights.  As previously discussed , New York has proven a fountain of cases strengthening gun rights."....Jonathan Turley

jonathanturley

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth

Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for
self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22.

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.

(2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field.
McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts
tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm
regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to
the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the
people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of
law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller,
554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.

(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today
requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are
consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today
are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in
1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution 
can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the
understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v.
Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller
at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed
meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not
apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S.,
at 582.
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the
Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two
relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because
“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second
Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations
when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767
(quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for
historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern
regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said,
respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan
a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.
(b) Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller
more explicit, the Court applies that standard to New York’s propercause requirement. Pp. 23–62.
(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the
Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no
party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for
self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding
also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and
Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for
self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a
home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and
confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24. 

4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN
Syllabus
(2) The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s
proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulation. To do so, respondents appeal to a variety of historical sources from the late 1200s to the early 1900s. But
when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the
Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or postdates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these
principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed
to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New
York’s proper-cause requirement. Pp. 24–62.
(i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and
custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement
that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ” 554 U. S., at 599. But the Court finds that history
ambiguous at best and sees little reason to think that the Framers
would have thought it applicable in the New World. The Court cannot
conclude from this historical record that, by the time of the founding,
English law would have justified restricting the right to publicly bear
arms suited for self-defense only to those who demonstrate some special need for self-protection. Pp. 30–37.
(ii) Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Colonies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on
public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three
colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry
regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is
not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York
law at issue. The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a
way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 554 U. S., at 627.
Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous
and unusual” during the colonial period, they are today “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” Id., at 629. Thus, these colonial laws
provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons
that are unquestionably in common use today. Pp. 37–42.
(iii) Only after the ratification of the Second Amendment in
1791 did public-carry restrictions proliferate. Respondents rely heavily on these restrictions, which generally fell into three categories:
common-law offenses, statutory prohibitions, and “surety” statutes.
None of these restrictions imposed a substantial burden on public
carry analogous to that imposed by New York’s restrictive licensing
regime.

Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 5
Syllabus
Common-Law Offenses. As during the colonial and founding periods, the common-law offenses of “affray” or going armed “to the terror
of the people” continued to impose some limits on firearm carry in the
antebellum period. But there is no evidence indicating that these common-law limitations impaired the right of the general population to
peaceable public carry.
Statutory Prohibitions. In the early to mid-19th century, some
States began enacting laws that proscribed the concealed carry of pistols and other small weapons. But the antebellum state-court decisions upholding them evince a consensus view that States could not
altogether prohibit the public carry of arms protected by the Second
Amendment or state analogues.
Surety Statutes. In the mid-19th century, many jurisdictions began
adopting laws that required certain individuals to post bond before
carrying weapons in public. Contrary to respondents’ position, these
surety statutes in no way represented direct precursors to New York’s
proper-cause requirement. While New York presumes that individuals have no public carry right without a showing of heightened need,
the surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to public
carry that could be burdened only if another could make out a specific
showing of “reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace.”
Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134, §16 (1836). Thus, unlike New York’s regime,
a showing of special need was required only after an individual was
reasonably accused of intending to injure another or breach the peace.
And, even then, proving special need simply avoided a fee.
In sum, the historical evidence from antebellum America does
demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable
regulation, but none of these limitations on the right to bear arms operated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs
from carrying arms in public for that purpose. Pp. 42–51.
(iv) Evidence from around the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment also does not support respondents’ position. The “discussion of the [right to keep and bear arms] in Congress and in public
discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional
rights for newly free slaves,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 614, generally
demonstrates that during Reconstruction the right to keep and bear
arms had limits that were consistent with a right of the public to peaceably carry handguns for self-defense. The Court acknowledges two
Texas cases—English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 and State v. Duke, 42 Tex.
455—that approved a statutory “reasonable grounds” standard for
public carry analogous to New York’s proper-cause requirement. But
these decisions were outliers and therefore provide little insight into
how postbellum courts viewed the right to carry protected arms in public. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 632. Pp. 52–58. 

6 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN
Syllabus
(v) Finally, respondents point to the slight uptick in gun regulation during the late-19th century. As the Court suggested in Heller,
however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into
the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence. In addition, the vast majority of the statutes that respondents
invoke come from the Western Territories. The bare existence of these
localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of
an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry.
See Heller, 554 U. S., at 614. Moreover, these territorial laws were
rarely subject to judicial scrutiny, and absent any evidence explaining
why these unprecedented prohibitions on all public carry were understood to comport with the Second Amendment, they do little to inform
“the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment.” Ibid.; see
also The Federalist No. 37, p. 229. Finally, these territorial restrictions deserve little weight because they were, consistent with the
transitory nature of territorial government, short lived. Some were
held unconstitutional shortly after passage, and others did not survive
a Territory’s admission to the Union as a State. Pp. 58–62.
(vi) After reviewing the Anglo-American history of public carry,
the Court concludes that respondents have not met their burden to
identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement. Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions,
American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public
carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor have they
generally required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a
special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general
community” to carry arms in public. Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d, at 793,
428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257. P. 62.
(c) The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense 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). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not
require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special
need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for selfdefense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates
the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with
ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and
bear arms in public. Pp. 62–63.
818 Fed. Appx. 99, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J. , delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,
and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J.,
filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in
which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN,
JJ.,

supremecourt

I can see what the court is after constitutionally, so let me be upfront about that, let me opine that this is going to open cities up to the days of the "Okay Corral" again. Why? Because it is a 'call' to the citizenry to show a gun maturity, many have, but an unknown proportion of the citizenry does not. Time will tell.

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a
home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and
confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24. 

So now it is legal to individually 'carry' in bars, taverns, restaurants, saloons, and other 'spirited' settings where inhibitions are 'lowered' and testy situations spring up easily?

That is easily researched with a simple google search if you really want to educate yourself and not just push a party line.

But. However. You are here with all your supposed gun knowledge and opinion. . . so is it okay if I ask you to share it? Or, must you keep it to yourself, because its. . . "mine"?

That's a round about way to say "I'm not gonna".

As I have been saying throughout this comment board, I am loosely listening and 'sharing' my thoughts. If someone is courteous, they can answer from their mountain of experiences and depth, breath, width, length, of discussions a few nuance questions - why is that too much to ask?  Are we just supposed to hate on one another. Goodness-remember we tell young people to suck it up/grow up/ and get over themselves!

"H", now you got me moralizing here! (Chuckles.)

Like my grandma used to say, the lord helps those who help themselves ..... 

So what does 'granny" say about sharing, manners, and 'home-training'? We're practically internet 'family' here and you still take the cheap shots?!  Still look for the 'combat'? Why? What's to gain by coming on here and being a . . . you could stay away and not try at all to mix well.

And what is this 'narrative' that is being perpetuated that no one has ever given you shit you didn't get yourself in life about? It's a lie. You interact with the world, so yes, it gives you shit of all types, stripes, purposes, privileges, and rights. Starting with a fact that none of us are free of decisions made by the branches of government (people) who rule over this country. This is not even your own internet or discussion site.

Lol ..... more nonsense from the nonsensical.

First if you put my grandmothers name in you mouth your do so with a little respect.    You talk about family, manners and cheap shots while you are projecting sophomoric shit like that!   Why do you insist on being so childish?    Weak CB, really, really weak.

Second, you couldn’t even begin to comprehend real combat.

Finally, my comment is very simple.    No need to over analyze.   Don’t be intellectually lazy.    Quit being lazy CB.

12.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  CB @12.2.1    15 hours ago

Like my grandma used to say, the lord helps those who help themselves ..... 

You put grandma "in my mouth" - I had no thought on grannies whatsoever before you id it. As for the saying: "the lord helps those who help themselves ....."  Well, the Lord will have to get busy, because some conservatives have been "helping themselves" to setting back liberals yet again in a matter of days.

Lastly, I am glad you have been in real combat. Apparently, life/fate gives us all what we need.

But, again let's be clear, you didn't do combat by yourself! It has and always will be a coordinated team effort.

BTW, you have all this real combat experience. . . don't be lazy. . . or will you. . . share it.

You put grandma "in my mouth" - I had no thought on grannies whatsoever before you id it. As for the saying: "the lord helps those who help themselves ....."  Well, the Lord will have to get busy, because some conservatives have been "helping themselves" to setting back liberals yet again in a matter of days.

True and you chose to use “granny” instead, clearly intending to be insulting.    So again, keep her out of your mouth until you can be more respectful.

Lastly, I am glad you have been in real combat.

Stop trying to put words in mouth and I’m not sure why you would be “glad” someone was in real combat.    More proof you couldn’t even begin to understand it.

BTW .... this seed isn’t about combat experience.    If you want to discuss combat experience, I suggest you start a discussion about combat experience.    Don’t continue to being intellectually lazy now .....

True and you chose to use “granny” instead, clearly intending to be insulting.    So again, keep her out of your mouth until you can be more respectful.

I will be respectful to call your grandma what you would like. However, let me be clear: My mother's grandchildren call her 'grannie' and they are grown now and I hear them do it. It is not offensive. Furthermore, as I have learned there are alterations on the term as parents and people try to dress it up or down. No offense was intended. But then I was not trying to dig at you by suggesting to Jeremy that he can share his valuable information with his internet family!

I put myself in the arms of the government to do what it will. The fates apparently did not want me to hold a gun. Was I supposed to MAKE them let me kill somebody? You tell me. Please share. What did I really miss?

You are rambling again CB but apology appreciated and accepted if that is what that was.

The seed is not about "gone to" either, but you capitalized @12.2.2  to bring grandma in and got 'bent' over not wanting to be a good model of the art of sharing.   If I wanted to come here to look up everything we discuss: what would be your role in this exchange?

Let's try to be decent from time to time: children might be watching and listening.

I am a firm believer in calling people what they want to be called. You want your grandmother to be called just so. I will do it accordingly. Yes! Sometimes I can push the envelope, but I also know how to reel it back in once I am made to understand.  

And, going one step farther than I have to: I am one of those children born to call "grandma/grannie/granny/nana/glam-ma": "Mom." May God be blessed with her.

You’re rambling on again CB ....... 

How am I to understand this: You tell me in your way of putting it to listen to your 'superior' rhetoric about doing and when I add my own about sharing I am rambling? You got me really wrong, Sparty On. I will talk to you eye to eye. Or, else.

So now it is legal to individually 'carry' in bars, taverns, restaurants, saloons, and other 'spirited' settings where inhibitions are 'lowered' and testy situations spring up easily?

No it is not , the state still has the right to restrict certain sensative places such as those you mentioned , as well as government facilities both federal and state as well as local . matter of fact any property owner can decide to not let firearms on their property even IF its open to the public , they simply have to post a sign that states that .

Matter of fact im thinking of posting one of those signs on my front gate , imagine the shock on some persons face when they think they have someone that has no guns because of that sign . 

That sign would be for others , as the owner i am exempt .

Just for the sake of argument: Proper public access ways as a whole can't have SIGNAGE signifying no concealed weapons allowed, right?

This is the SCOTUS dilemma I see (or not because they have now removed themselves): Somebody is still deciding what/where zones are "special" or "protected" from guns in the public an private spheres. That is just like officials, deputies, private clubs, home owners can control who 'packs' in real-time. Somebodies on the 'block or street' are not at liberty or freedom to 'manage' gun concealment carry. Consequently, the only one out and out in the clear here is SCOTUS with no responsibility for what occurs, right?