Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 182 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Thomas wrote the opinion with a thought towards other anti-2nd issues.

"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."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Gist of case:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for selfdefense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic- —————— for the defense of his person, property or family.” Salina, Kan., Rev. Ordinance No. 268, §2. Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 63 Opinion of the Court ers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Court said:

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense."

This may have opened the door to nation wide constitutional carry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Court said:

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense."

This may have opened the door to nation wide constitutional carry
Let Freedom Ring! Finally a SCOTUS with a sac willing to take on tough decisions. Can't wait for the rest of this terms decisions.

Liberal tears are lubricating the gears of freedom today!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
"We have already 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. “Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”


Good luck banning AR-15s now....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I currently live in NY, I just want a lawyer to decipher all of this and let me know if I still need to apply for a license or if it is now like my home state (VT) and I don't need any licenses or permits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
The ruling confirms that it is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside one's home. It will be interesting to see the implications of this for non-residents visiting liberal states where that individual's home state permit is not recognized. Based on this ruling, why shouldn't state carry permits be recognized similar to state driver's licenses? For emphasis, we're dealing with the constitutional right to carry firearms in public places.
 

·
Jackpine Savage
Joined
·
7,032 Posts
I currently live in NY, I just want a lawyer to decipher all of this and let me know if I still need to apply for a license or if it is now like my home state (VT) and I don't need any licenses or permits.
I'm not a lawyer but I think you will go to a "shall issue" where you still have to apply but now the burden of proof is on them to show why you shouldn't be able to carry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,356 Posts
Truly sad this issue had to go all the way to the SCOTUS for resolution.

Can we really call it a win when common sense prevails?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davehb

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
The ruling confirms that it is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside one's home. It will be interesting to see the implications of this for non-residents visiting liberal states where that individual's home state permit is not recognized. Based on this ruling, why shouldn't state carry permits be recognized similar to state driver's licenses? For emphasis, we're dealing with the constitutional right to carry firearms in public places.
If it wasn't for some footnotes that the Court put in the opinion saying this doesn't invalidate "shall issue" licensing, I'd argue that this was an opinion for constitutional carry. The colonies didn't required licenses. And no other enumerated constitutional right requires a government license.
 
1 - 20 of 182 Posts
Top