╌>

In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public

  
Via:  Nowhere Man  •  3 years ago  •  19 comments

By:   Amy Howe

In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Leave a comment to auto-join group The Deplorables

The Deplorables


The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” On Nov. 3, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on how that guarantee applies to carrying guns in public. The case,   New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , involves a 108-year-old handgun-licensing law in New York – but if the justices side with the challengers, their decision could jeopardize gun-control laws in other states and cities across the country.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Both sides in the case agree that the Constitution protects a right to carry a handgun outside of the home for self-defense, but they have very different views on whether and when the government can place restrictions on that right. The court’s decision is likely to be a major ruling on gun rights, and it could hinge on the justices’ view of the history of gun rights in England and the United States – a history that, like the right itself, the parties to the case hotly dispute.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
1  seeder  Nowhere Man    3 years ago

Here we go!

Will NY's requirement to show a need to carry a firearm in the city limits go by the wayside?

Oral arguments were heard last month...

Most people consider it a slam dunk and the Supreme Court is going to make New York a SHALL ISSUE state...

Funny we haven't heard about it in the media....

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    3 years ago

But only if you are member of a well regulated militia.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.1  seeder  Nowhere Man  replied to  JBB @2    3 years ago

And in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that under the Second Amendment, the citizens ARE the militia.... (for the purposes of the Second Amendment)

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JBB @2    3 years ago

Very wrong!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.3  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @2    3 years ago

You can sleep easy tonite.   Legal gun owners are already well regulated.  

Many would say over regulated ...... which brings us back to the topic of this article.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sparty On @2.3    3 years ago

I agree that gun owners in most states are over regulated 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.4  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @2    3 years ago

People who follow regulations are really not the problem.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @2.4    3 years ago

Historically, they almost never have been.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @2    3 years ago

All citizens who are not convicted felons are part of the militia intended by the 2A

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.5.1  Sparty On  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.5    3 years ago

You missed a few.   Other folks who may be disqualified from the 2nd Amendment militia:

- Fugitives from justice

- Unlawful drug users

- Anyone who has EVER been adjudicate mentally defective or committed to a mental institution

- Anyone subject to a PPO

- Any dishonorably discharged Veteran

- Any person unlawfully in the US or illegal alien

- Anyone who has renounced their US citizenship

I think that's about it ........

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
2.6  squiggy  replied to  JBB @2    3 years ago

When ‘regulated’, as used in 2a, is taken in it’s contemporaneous context as ‘supplied’, ‘provisioned’, or ‘issued’ the whole thing flows and makes sense - as opposed to stumbling over redundancy and poor logic.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.6.1  Tacos!  replied to  squiggy @2.6    3 years ago

It’s an important example of how we can’t just assume that uneducated lay people can read these documents and think they understand what is written there. Context - as of the writing of these words - is critical to respecting the intent of the writers.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.6.2  seeder  Nowhere Man  replied to  squiggy @2.6    3 years ago

Actually the court decided that being supplied and outfitted is not what that meant, The militia man was to come supplied when the call came...

"Well Regulated" in the founders case for the 2nd was "Well Trained"  and for that seeing as there was no ability in the nation for provisioning an army the militia had to supply itself with weapons and all the needed things for soldering... At that point they could be regulated... Hence since they needed to show up provisioned and ready to be trained, the right of the citizen to keep and hold the accouterments of being a soldier can not be infringed upon..

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
3  seeder  Nowhere Man    3 years ago

Oral arguments were presented on November 3rd 2021.... The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen and the transcript of the argument is here ... (pdf)

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
4  seeder  Nowhere Man    3 years ago

The main gist of the arguments for is since most citizens live in "Shall Issue" states, the citizens of New York are being denied a right that 42 of the other states readily grant rightfully so under Heller & McDonald... If they rule in favor then there will be no point to any state maintaining anything but a Shall Issue status...

States would be allowed to mandate gun free zones which is their right to regulate, but they cannot regulate a protected right out of existence...

The states argument runs to so many people being so close together in NY City that essentially the entire city should be a gun safe zone... But that is not how the law reads.. The entire state is covered by the "have a need" basis for approving carry permits...

I think that is about to change...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Nowhere Man @4    3 years ago

It's long overdue.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.2  Sparty On  replied to  Nowhere Man @4    3 years ago

Personally i think this falls into the "states rights" category.    Let the people of each state decide.   It only gets constitutionally hinky when considering a possible Tyranny of the Majority situation.

Generally speaking, the less the Fed sticks it's beak in states business, the better imo.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
4.2.1  seeder  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sparty On @4.2    3 years ago
Generally speaking, the less the Fed sticks it's beak in states business, the better imo.

Absolutely!

Tyranny of the majority is what they are trying to overturn, get all 50 states on the same page then go from there and let the states decide within the constitution...

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
4.2.2  zuksam  replied to  Sparty On @4.2    3 years ago
Generally speaking, the less the Fed sticks it's beak in states business, the better imo.

For most things yes, but we're talking about Constitutional Rights and that's Fed business not State. When an Amendment states that a Right "Shall Not Be Infringed" it doesn't get any clearer that any infringement is unconstitutional.

 
 

Who is online

Sparty On
Ozzwald
devangelical


497 visitors