Patterico's Pontifications

6/23/2022

Supreme Court Says No to NY Concealed-Carry Restrictions

Filed under: General — JVW @ 8:15 am



[guest post by JVW]

Gun control activist’s minds are about to explode:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement to obtain a concealed-carry license is unconstitutional as it violates ordinary citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

The Court voted 6-3 to strike down the New York law, which has been in place since 1913 and required that people show a special need to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry a gun outside the home, adding that the state’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.”

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts which agreed that New York’s proper-cause requirement imposed an unreasonable burden, but they were careful to declare that states still reserved the right to impose licensing requirements for concealed carry, so long as those requirements are similar to those found in “shall-issue” states. This of course means that the Court will likely be hearing another case several years down the road in which a state like New York or California sets such rigid licensing requirements as to effectively deny permits to the vast majority of applicants. But for now, this ruling is a victory for the common-sense notion that a law-abiding citizen need not be facing some specific danger in order to exercise their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

– JVW

139 Responses to “Supreme Court Says No to NY Concealed-Carry Restrictions”

  1. Ruling junking Roe and Casey coming tomorrow?

    JVW (020d31)

  2. This of course means that the Court will likely be hearing another case several years down the road in which a state like New York or California sets such rigid licensing requirements as to effectively deny permits to the vast majority of applicants.

    They won’t, and I’ll tell you why. Because the people to whom they do issue now — Hassidic diamond couriers, retired cops, rich jerkoffs, and media celebrities — would not be able to meet them, either.

    nk (03433c)

  3. Taking his valedictory lap, retiring Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent to the case which attempted to link the Uvalde shooter to “lax” concealed-carry requirements. Justice Alito was having none of it:

    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. . . . Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? . . . Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

    Chalk one up for every conservative’s new favorite Justice (with all due respect to you, Justice Thomas).

    JVW (020d31)

  4. As a policy matter, I intensely dislike this outcome — Manhattan will be less safe as a result of a larger percentage of its population carrying guns, and this is a step towards building a world in which everyone is constantly afraid of everyone else.

    But as a *legal* matter — even though I think the majority’s historical analysis is problematic (particularly its dismissal of the statute of northampton), i also think the reasoning of heller *compels* this result. Once you’ve said that the second amendment clearly protects an individual right, of course you can’t hinge exercise of that right on convincing a state agent that you need it. That completely defeats the point of it being a *right*, and it would be intolerable as applied to, say, the right to free speech or the right to protection from unreasonable seizure or the right to a jury trial … which means we *can’t* tolerate it here lest it be used as a precedent for attempts to make us tolerate it elsewhere.

    People like me who think widespread concealed carry in dense populations is a threat to public safety need to do the work of persuading people to support a constitutional amendment — *under the constitution as it currently stands*, this is the correct decision.

    Even though I hate it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  5. “Ruling junking Roe and Casey coming tomorrow?“

    5pm Eastern, cars packed and running…

    Colonel Haiku (1408c7)

  6. The Supreme Court rarely issues a decision that answers every question. I would like to have seen a decision that banned all licensing requirements, since once a right requires a license it becomes a privilege. Concealed carry by law-abiding citizens will not be a problem-and the decision will have no impact on those that aren’t law-abiding.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  7. This of course means that the Court will likely be hearing another case several years down the road in which a state like New York or California sets such rigid licensing requirements as to effectively deny permits to the vast majority of applicants.

    Hmmm. I think one line of attack on such foot-dragging would be a civil-rights case, requesting damages from public officials and claiming that they are not protected by qualified immunity, given that they should know better.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  8. The Uvalde thing isn’t quite the gun-control case anymore. The gun-control argument goes: you don’t need guns, the police are here to protect you.

    Given the breath-taking incompetence of the Uvalde police — where most of the children were killed while a dozen cops huddled outside an unlocked door — it becomes an argument AGAINST relying on the police for protection.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  9. Even though I hate it.

    I find that I’m more concerned with the lengths the political reaction has taken. Some states have adopted “constitutional carry”, where no license or test or showing of competence is required for concealed carry. I find that inherently dangerous.

    The Court at least makes clear that licensing is allowable, which puts paid to the argument in some states that it is not.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  10. [O]nce a right requires a license it becomes a privilege.

    We already have more limitations on the 2A right than on any other right. Felons have the right to speak, worship and own newspapers, although their association rights might be curtailed. But they cannot own a handgun and most cannot own a long gun. Some persons who are not felons are also enjoined from gun ownership and this group will increase with “red flag” laws.

    There is a big difference between a “right” and a “privilege”, even if the right is sometimes limited: you can always dial back a privilege. The NY gun law would not be an issue if the 2A conferred only a privilege.

    Even if one needed a state-issued license for gun ownership (which background checks implement in practice), any refusal by the state to issue such would run up against a RIGHT, and heightened scrutiny, rather than the lax scrutiny accorded withholding of a privilege.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  11. This is being consistent, and I agree with your concluding statement too:

    But as a *legal* matter — even though I think the majority’s historical analysis is problematic (particularly its dismissal of the statute of northampton), i also think the reasoning of heller *compels* this result. Once you’ve said that the second amendment clearly protects an individual right, of course you can’t hinge exercise of that right on convincing a state agent that you need it. That completely defeats the point of it being a *right*, and it would be intolerable as applied to, say, the right to free speech or the right to protection from unreasonable seizure or the right to a jury trial … which means we *can’t* tolerate it here lest it be used as a precedent for attempts to make us tolerate it elsewhere.

    People like me who think widespread concealed carry in dense populations is a threat to public safety need to do the work of persuading people to support a constitutional amendment — *under the constitution as it currently stands*, this is the correct decision.

    Even though I hate it.

    Dana (1225fc)

  12. I wonder what happens to that San Diego case, where a judge said that *some* form of carry must be allowed — open or concealed. The 9th overturned, but I think that after Bruen it would have to be decided differently.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  13. The Supreme Court of Public Opinion Says No Leaker, No Legitimacy

    FIFY.

    A group of be-robed bureaucrats who can’t keep track of their own paperwork lacks any gravitas to dictate how 333 million folks should live their lives.

    Ignore them, America.

    _______

    ‘Justice Alito was having none of it:

    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. . . . Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? . . . Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.’

    My. Mouthy. Ain’t he.

    Alito is the leaker.

    DCSCA (e61075)

  14. @4. People like me who think widespread concealed carry in dense populations is a threat to public safety need to do the work of persuading people to support a constitutional amendment — *under the constitution as it currently stands*, this is the correct decision.

    aphrael, the body count should do that.

    The C&C fella stalking Kavanaugh two weeks ago should be pleased by this. Why people who don’t C&C aren’t considered threatened by those who do is perplexing. It’s obvious who has the advantage in that equation. But then, depends on which end of the gun barrel you face, doesn’t it— and of course, those government bureaucrats who quilled this silliness– and take four months off work- are well protected, at taxpayer expense, by armed guards, barbed- wire fencing around their work places and driven to and from work in big, black, expensive gas guzzling SUV by armed drivers as well.

    Until the leaker is nailed, Americans have the right to just ignore them. Bring on The Dancing Alitos– two shows nightly; two drink minimum, eh Brett?!

    DCSCA (e61075)

  15. I like the departure, if such it was, from Miller’s (not you, Jim) “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” to “commonly used for self-defense”.

    No “Beecher’s Bibles” for AOC’s insurrectionists at the Staten Island Ferry.

    nk (03433c)

  16. @8. Given the breath-taking incompetence of the Uvalde police — where most of the children were killed while a dozen cops huddled outside an unlocked door — it becomes an argument AGAINST relying on the police for protection.

    Yeah. Who needs ’em! Defund police! =sarc=

    DCSCA (e61075)

  17. People like me who think widespread concealed carry in dense populations is a threat to public safety need to do the work of persuading people to support a constitutional amendment — *under the constitution as it currently stands*, this is the correct decision.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 6/23/2022 @ 8:40 am

    The more productive route is trying to tax this out of existence via both ammo and gun taxes. But then you’d need to convince people that only rich people should be able to defend themselves.

    A better argument than both of these is to argue against dense population centers altogether. Then you get the safety from a general boost in overall mental health.

    frosty (9cba7f)

  18. Ack-shually.. I like “arm the people” as a retort to “de-fund the police.”

    felipe (484255)

  19. frosty (9cba7f) — 6/23/2022 @ 9:43 am

    Well-played, frosty.

    felipe (484255)

  20. I like “arm the people” as a retort to “de-fund the police.”

    Said William Bonney to Pat Garrett; said Al Capone to Eliot Ness; said Mark Chapman to Yoko Ono… etc., etc.,

    DCSCA (e61075)

  21. But then you’d need to convince people that only rich people should be able to defend themselves.

    Given Fortress SCOTUS workplace, the armed guards patrolling same, the driving them to from work in well protected government financed SUVs, the be-robed government bureaucrats who take 4 months off for vacation– the ‘well defended’ pitch is already self-evident. Let’s ask the teachers and kids in Uvalde… Oh. Wait.

    DCSCA (e61075)

  22. The more productive route is trying to tax this out of existence via both ammo and gun taxes.

    You know that won’t work. If it would, they’d have taxed abortion out of existence.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  23. If the Court actually sticks to the method of reasoning here (the “no step 2” part) this will be a major change for the lower courts. It will be interesting to see if any of the CoA actually change their approach.

    Soronel Haetir (6ef4cf)

  24. DCSCA (e61075) — 6/23/2022 @ 9:55 am

    You’ve got that backwards.

    Said Pat Garrett to William Bonney; said Eliot Ness to Al Capone; said….

    felipe (484255)

  25. The next battle will be over state bans of particular guns, magazine limits, sensitive places, etc. Can a state ban all semi-auto weapons? Can it ban guns within 3 miles of a school or daycare center? Can it impose insurance requirements, taxes, bonds, etc?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  26. @24. Actually, you do.

    But the castle stormers will love this. 😉

    DCSCA (e61075)

  27. aphrael wrote:

    People like me who think widespread concealed carry in dense populations is a threat to public safety need to do the work of persuading people to support a constitutional amendment — *under the constitution as it currently stands*, this is the correct decision.

    Even though I hate it.

    This is an unusual statement; do you believe that people’s constitutional rights should differ based upon the population density of their locality?

    I doubt that’s what you really meant, but that’s how I read it.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  28. If the Court actually sticks to the method of reasoning here (the “no step 2” part) this will be a major change for the lower courts. It will be interesting to see if any of the CoA actually change their approach.

    Nearly 2 months; have they found the leaker yet?

    They don’t really excel at ‘methods of reasoning’– and will run like be-robed rats when they vacate for 4 month vacation on Friday. Such is the nature of life-long appointed bureaucrats.

    DCSCA (e61075)

  29. > do you believe that people’s constitutional rights should differ based upon the population density of their locality?

    absolutely not. i believe we should amend the constitution to allow places of high population density to regulate guns in a way that is not currently constitutional.

    absent that amendment, i think this decision is right as a matter of law even though i hate it as a matter of policy and believe it makes my existence actively less safe.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  30. I read both Justice Thomas’ majority opinion, and Justice Breyer’s dissent.

    It seems to me that Justice Thomas and his clerks spent too much time and effort on the King Edward III’s Statute of Northampton, from 1328; that entire section of the opinion met the MEGO (my eyes glaze over) standard. All of that was pretty much invalidated by the 1688 English Bill of Rights anyway, which granted to all Protestants the right to keep arms for their defense.

    However, Justice Breyer’s dissent, and the complaints of all of the politicians who want strict gun control law, fails on one simple fact: the gun control laws have not had the effect claimed for them. Murders are rising in New York City, homicides have hit record levels in Philadelphia, because, shockingly enough, criminals don’t obey gun control laws. How does burdening a law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense stop the gang bangers and thugs who get guns illegally, and don’t care about any stinkin’ licenses? Justice Breyer’s dissent was heavy on practicality and necessity due to increased ‘gun violence,’ but New York’s gun laws haven’t stopped murders, have they?

    There’s only one gun control law that would have any effect, and that’s a complete ban on firearm ownership, coupled with a massive police and military sweep to locate and confiscate all weapons, without any requirements for warrants to enter and search a place.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  31. the aphrael channeling e e cummings 🙂 wrote:

    i think this decision is right as a matter of law even though i hate it as a matter of policy and believe it makes my existence actively less safe.

    I’ve retired out into the boondocks these days, and everybody in the countryside is armed; I’m 100 yards from the Daniel Boone National Forest, which is full of bears, wildcats and coyotes. But even if I lived in foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, I don’t see where this decision would make me less safe, simply because the bad guys don’t bother with concealed carry permits if they know they’ll be denied anyway.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  32. Mr M wrote:

    Can (the state) ban guns within 3 miles of a school or daycare center?

    That would have prohibited me, and almost everyone else, from owning a firearm for almost all of my life. I have only lived more than three miles from a school since July of 2017.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  33. 1. JVW (020d31) — 6/23/2022 @ 8:16 am

    Ruling junking Roe and Casey coming tomorrow?

    They’ll probably save it for the last day, which should be June 30. This one, while it would seem to some to be the second most important, might not have been regarded so by the court.

    The ruling was 4-2-3

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  34. 30. The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af) — 6/23/2022 @ 11:03 am

    However, Justice Breyer’s dissent, and the complaints of all of the politicians who want strict gun control law, fails on one simple fact: the gun control laws have not had the effect claimed for them.

    Yes they work, and they make stp, question and frisk possible.

    Murders are rising in New York City, homicides have hit record levels in Philadelphia, because, shockingly enough, criminals don’t obey gun control laws.

    They do. Certainly as far as carrying them is concerned.

    The problem is they stopped enforcing them and they stopped automatically sending people to jail. I mean, that’s what’s changed. Anti-carry laws were never seriously enforced in Chicago, but they were in New York.

    How does burdening a law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense stop the gang bangers and thugs who get guns illegally, and don’t care about any stinkin’ licenses?

    Most gun control laws, though, are aimed at the seller, not the buyer. People who usually obey the law. And most guns, at some point, were obtained legally.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  35. I’ll tell you what is really stupid. “Red flag” laws. They can only take away guns in situations where people do not really intend to use them to commit a crime (or have a strong hesitation about that either because they don’t really want to die or are afraid of the law.)

    A red flag proceeding is time consuming. A Red flag law could precipitate some crimes, by giving people a deadline after which they will no longer be able to go ahead. Talk about a high pressure situation. They’re incredibly stupid.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  36. Justice Breyer’s dissent was heavy on practicality and necessity due to increased ‘gun violence,’ but New York’s gun laws haven’t stopped murders, have they?

    Yes they did:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/crime-dropped-under-stop-frisk-which-worth-remembering-rush-criticize-ncna1151121

    Beginning in 1991, New York experienced the broadest and deepest decline in violent crime of any major American city. By 2013, Bloomberg’s last year as mayor, the murder rate had dropped to 3.3 per 100,000 population, or 335 in a city of more than 8 million. Chicago, in contrast, with a population less than half that of New York, had 415 homicides in 2013. New York’s homicide drop was concentrated in firearms-related homicides committed outdoors

    If gun possession is already illegal, you don’t need to prove anything else, and guns are not protected by the 4th amendment – a policeman can search (if he has a realistic fear) without a warrant. Lawsuits claimed they were searching too many blacks, but the false alarms were not higher.

    But they stopped enforcing it as much, thanks to critics of the police, and lawsuits, and the no bail law etc. The last few months they’ve been going after illegal guns again and the rate has dipped.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/guns-new-york-city-ghost-guns

    Officials say gun arrests are at a 28-year high in New York City, where every morning federal, state and local police meet to review strategy and seize illegal guns.

    They are higher, but probably not because more guns suddenly appeared this year. More guns suddenly appeared in 2021.

    https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p00050/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-may-2022

    For the month of May 2022, the number of overall shooting incidents again declined in New York City compared with May 2021, continuing the downward trend in gun violence in the second quarter of the calendar year. Citywide shooting incidents decreased by 31.4% (118 v. 172), marked by declines in every patrol borough except Staten Island, where the tally remained even at three in May 2022 compared with May 2021. The number of overall hate crimes also declined for the month, by 10%, (63 v. 73) compared to the same period last year.

    Additionally, there were 414 gun arrests in May 2022, bringing the total number of citywide gun arrests in 2022 to 2,007 – a 4.4% increase compared with the 1,923 gun arrests through the first five months of 2021. In its continuing work to eradicate gun violence, the NYPD has seized approximately 3,080 firearms so far in 2022, at a time when its gun arrests are at a 28-year high.

    All basically made possible by the Sullivan Law and the rarity of open or concealed carry permits..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  37. the bad guys don’t bother with concealed carry permits if they know they’ll be denied anyway.

    And they are very careful about carrying guns (no spur of the moment shootings or gunfights) because of stop and frisk combined with do not pass go and go directly to jail.

    What they’ve been doing the past few months, even without bail, is forcing people arrested on gun charges to go back to court every two weeks. This harassment works. I suppose they do something if they don’t show up.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  38. From what I heard on NPR – the upshot is New York’s law which gives toomuch discretion to the person giving the permit, is unconstitutional; requirements for owning a gun are constitutional; guns can be prohibited in sensitive places like the United States Supreme Court; and carrying guns in a way so as to terrorize people can be prohibited.

    They’d have to allow Congress or a state to prohibit the manufacture and sale of some guns altogether — nobody is challenging the law that a gun has to look like a gun and can’t be concealed a la James Bond.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  39. i believe we should amend the constitution to allow places of high population density to regulate guns in a way that is not currently constitutional.

    absent that amendment, i think this decision is right as a matter of law even though i hate it as a matter of policy and believe it makes my existence actively less safe.

    If only we lived in that ideal fantasy world where hot fudge sundaes weren’t fattening, Bidens bounced off cement like balls of Silly Putty and bullets bounced off everything from Superman and Fortress SCOTUS.

    DCSCA (58310f)

  40. “ Some states have adopted “constitutional carry”, where no license or test or showing of competence is required for concealed carry. I find that inherently dangerous.”

    It is almost like everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    kaf (f4e7a8)

  41. Would you have that rule with cars? No training or testing of any kind? Even if car-driving was a “right”?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  42. That would have prohibited me, and almost everyone else, from owning a firearm for almost all of my life.

    Pretty much my point. You see a lot of these laws that demand radii from schools, when they really intend to ban something.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  43. “I’ll tell you what is really stupid. “Red flag” laws. They can only take away guns in situations where people do not really intend to use them to commit a crime”

    Check how many gun deaths are from suicides. Maybe it’s worthwhile to help on that front. Also, if people post mass killing thoughts on social media, maybe red flag laws might cause someone to take action. There’s nothing perfect here and there needs to be due process, but I see nothing odious here.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  44. One thing to know here: Justice Thomas has been planning this opinion for years if not decades. His jurisprudence is rooted in the privileges and immunities section of the 14th that the post-Civil War courts threw out, starting with Slaughterhouse. That became a pattern of removing freedmen’s rights and culminating in Jim Crow.

    Thomas believes that gun rights are fundamental to African-American freedom, and that much of the history of gun control was about taking guns away from Blacks. It is instructive that Steven’s dissent in Heller quoted the 1876 Cruikshank decision that struck down federal civil rights laws and any incorporation of federal rights on the states (and legalized lynching). I can’t see Thomas taking that very well.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  45. I don’t know that I would take guns away from the suicidal. They might decide instead to kill themselves in a way that endangers others.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  46. The democrat corporate establishment has no answer to ruling except whining further discrediting them with the democrat party base. This allows the left base to demand AOC and the squad take the lead in the counter-offensive against the supreme court and the trumpster led republican party.

    asset (1b12a7)

  47. If the hard Left really wanted to give the GOP second thoughts regarding guns, they’d be out arming themselves to the hilt.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  48. @44 I have no problem with black people especially in the ghettos arming themselves to shoot back at racism. Like the john brown gun club and black militant groups already have armed up. It is the establishment democrats on orders from their corporate masters to keep the ghetto disarmed so their criminal auxillary are the only ones armed

    asset (1b12a7)

  49. Alito’s concurrence contains his statement of what he thinks was decided in the decision. He is also commenting on the reasoning in the dissent:

    “Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.

    The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.

    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

    The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home.

    And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

    No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

    Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year.

    I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.”

    [Note: Comment rescued from moderation. – JVW]

    TW2021 (824a6b)

  50. Interesting factoid:

    It was the public display of firearms by the Black Panthers at the State Capitol that led to California’s first gun control law, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1967.

    The law, AB 1591—better known as the Mulford Act and named for its author, Alameda County Republican Assemblymember Don Mulford—banned the carrying of firearms in public, making it a felony to do so without a government-issued license.

    Prior to Reagan’s giving the law the go-ahead, nothing in California law prevented anyone from carrying a loaded firearm in any public location, as long as the gun was not concealed, and the person carrying it did not point the weapon at another person.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  51. I have no problem with black people especially in the ghettos arming themselves to shoot back at racism.

    What next, lynching each other again, too? This Wild West mentality has the world laughing and certainly only makes America a harder sell.

    DCSCA (2cf16d)

  52. KevinM: “I don’t know that I would take guns away from the suicidal. They might decide instead to kill themselves in a way that endangers others.”

    Over 20,000 people commit suicide with guns….with many suicides being impulsive actions. More than half of suicides are with guns…..and their ready availability to the task. Guns are far more efficient means of suicide than say pills or cutting where an individual might still be able to call for help or have someone intercede. Most people who commit suicide are not looking to harm other people. So, unless you think a lot more people will jump off roofs and inadvertently land on other people, I’m not seeing the practical concern here.

    I would always defer to experts that deal with the suicidal, but this seems like common sense.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  53. “I’ll tell you what is really stupid. “Red flag” laws. They can only take away guns in situations where people do not really intend to use them to commit a crime”

    So are TSA checks and the incredibly tedious security procedures to board a frigging plane today, too. How many of you plan to hijack an airliner? It’s a PITA but the transgressions of a few have restricted the right for the most in all walks of life. So it has to b e with guns. Rob a bank lately? Of course not. But a few do and it makes banking a PITA for the many. The irrationality of gun nuts is just wacky. Walk into a NY bar like John Wayne w/a pistol on you hip and you don’t think that intimidates unarmed patrons? This country is so fvcked up when it comes to common sense gun laws. And for the beer chugging patriots who love playing army man but conveniently ignore the first part of the 2nd Amendment, a virus filled thumb drive or the flick of the switch by water & power companies can bring them to their knees in days if not hours.

    DCSCA (2cf16d)

  54. Mr Finkelman wrote:

    Murders are rising in New York City, homicides have hit record levels in Philadelphia, because, shockingly enough, criminals don’t obey gun control laws.

    They do. Certainly as far as carrying them is concerned.

    I’m sure that you remember the South Street ‘mass shooting’ in Philadelphia. There were five people involved in the shootings. Three, we were told, did not have concealed carry permits, while two did. However, one of the two only had a CCW permit because of a clerical error in Delaware County, and should have been denied the permit.

    So, what happened? The whole thing was set off when two thugs accosted a third goon, and started beating him up. Then one of the two thugs pulled a gun and shot the guy they were beating. That victim was able to pull his own weapon, and shoot the guy who shot him first, killing him. That man was the only one who legitimately had a CCW permit.

    Two other idiots began firing randomly into the crowd, killing two people and wounding 11. One of them had a ‘ghost gun,’ no serial number, built from parts, and with an extended magazine. A Philadelphia Police officer shot him, and kind of like Tom Berenger as Rex O’Herlihan in Rustler’s Rhapsody — a grossly underrated movie! — shot the gun out of his hand, though I would imagine that he was actually aiming for ‘center of mass,’ as trained, and just got lucky.

    It would, of course, be extremely unChristian of me to hope that the guy’s hand got blown off, as he initially screamed it had.

    Of course, the law-abiding people in Philly have been applying for firearms permits at record rates, because the bad guys don’t obey the law!

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  55. > I don’t see where this decision would make me less safe,

    first, every person carrying a gun in a dense population is a person who has decided that there is a substantial possibility that their safety will depend on their ability to kill someone.

    they don’t have to be bad guys. they just have to be error-prone humans who are capable of making mistakes — mistakes in judgment, mistakes in accuracy, mistakes in how they handle their device.

    a device whose purpose is to kill people and which they have decided in advance there is a substantial likelihood they will need to use.

    how is this *not* threatening? how is not *intended* to be threatening?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  56. > Walk into a NY bar like John Wayne w/a pistol on you hip and you don’t think that intimidates unarmed patrons?

    of course it does. a lot of pro-gun people seem to take the position that this is intentional — that only by intimidating everyone can we ensure that society is polite.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  57. Mr Finkelman wrote:

    the bad guys don’t bother with concealed carry permits if they know they’ll be denied anyway.

    And they are very careful about carrying guns (no spur of the moment shootings or gunfights) because of stop and frisk combined with do not pass go and go directly to jail.

    I apologize. For some reason, I thought you lived in or near Philadelphia. I can see that I must have been mistaken! After all, gunfights seem common enough there, and with 1.4220 homicides per day, the city is headed for its second highest homicide total in history, somewhere between 519 and 530, surpassed only by last year’s 562.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  58. https://tenor.com/view/dead-pool-ryan-reynolds-im-touching-myself-tonight-gun-smell-gif-5173891

    I think this is my favorite part:

    “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.”

    Justice Thomas legit just argued that gun control is racist. ROTFLMAO!

    whembly (7e0293)

  59. of course it does. a lot of pro-gun people seem to take the position that this is intentional — that only by intimidating everyone can we ensure that society is polite.

    Its irrational.

    DCSCA (2cf16d)

  60. aphrael wrote:

    Walk into a NY bar like John Wayne w/a pistol on you hip and you don’t think that intimidates unarmed patrons?

    of course it does. a lot of pro-gun people seem to take the position that this is intentional — that only by intimidating everyone can we ensure that society is polite.

    “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” — Robert E Howard, The Tower of the Elephant.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  61. The more productive route is trying to tax this out of existence via both ammo and gun taxes.

    You know that won’t work. If it would, they’d have taxed abortion out of existence.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/23/2022 @ 10:19 am

    maybe 2A people should be asserting a right to free ammo and firearms on demand

    frosty (9cba7f)

  62. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGJxhMMvjYU

    When The Simpsons make more sense than the be-robed bureaucrats who take 4 month vacations.

    DCSCA (2cf16d)

  63. maybe 2A people should be asserting a right to free ammo and firearms on demand

    What is this hostility to the 2nd Amendment on a conservative forum?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  64. aphrael wrote:

    I don’t see where this decision would make me less safe,

    first, every person carrying a gun in a dense population is a person who has decided that there is a substantial possibility that their safety will depend on their ability to kill someone.

    Possibly, but it seems to me that your argument suffers from the same flaw as those of gun controllers everywhere, that criminals won’t carry firearms without a license.

    Now we can assume, at least sort-of, that otherwise law-abiding people would not carry a concealed weapon without a permit, if such was required — it’s not here in the Bluegrass State — which pretty much reduces your argument to protecting yourself not from the bad guys, but a good guy who just might make a mistake.

    At least in Philly, law-abiding people are applying for gun permits at record rates due to all of the gang-bangers out there carrying, most without permits. Of course, the city has another ‘woke’ George Soros sponsored district attorney in Larry Krasner — think a George Gasçon/Chesa Boudin clone — who doesn’t want actual criminals to go to jail, and has thus far declined to prosecute 61% of the illegal firearms arrests in the city. There’s a move in the state legislature to impeach him, but Pennsylvania does not have the recall election provision that the Pyrite State does.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  65. Alito joined Thomas’ opinion in full, as do Kavanaugh and Barrett. Each wrote a concurring opinion. Alito to address the mistakes in the dissent, Kavanaugh to note that shall-issue licensing regimes were generally unaffected by this decision, and Barrett to discuss some methodology going forward.

    To say this was 4-2-3 is mistaken. It is 6-3 with six justices signing the Court’s opinion.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  66. > Possibly, but it seems to me that your argument suffers from the same flaw as those of gun controllers everywhere, that criminals won’t carry firearms without a license.

    not at all. i’m saying that non-criminals who (a) have decided that their safety depends on them having the ability to kill someone at a moments’ notice and (b) are capable of making mistakes … those people are unlikely to carry without a license, and the combination of (a) and (b) means that a sufficiently dense population full of these people *carrying* is a serious danger and risk to public safety.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  67. > but a good guy who just might make a mistake.

    five thousand of them within range to kill me, at any moment, if i’m in manhattan. or more.

    the more people doing something which presents a small risk of a fatal mistake, the higher the overall likelihood of a fatal mistake. in an urban area of NYC’s density, that risk is unacceptably high.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  68. Now we can assume, at least sort-of, that otherwise law-abiding people would not carry a concealed weapon without a permit,

    It turns out in California that “law-abiding” persons do carry a pistol without a permit since a permit is unobtainable. Often women, keeping a small pistol in their purse, since women are most likely to be attacked and least likely to be able to defend.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  69. > To say this was 4-2-3 is mistaken. It is 6-3 with six justices signing the Court’s opinion.

    agreed. describing this as 4-2-3 is bizarre.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  70. Alito to address the mistakes in the dissent…

    Mistakes? So a differing opinion is a ‘mistake’???

    He’s quite a zealous and mouthy fella.

    He’s also the leaker.

    DCSCA (2cf16d)

  71. > “law-abiding” persons do carry a pistol without a permit

    how can one be law-abiding while breaking the law?

    i’m reminded, yet again, that many people who claim to care about the law *per se* actually only care about specific laws. if you think it’s ok to break the law requiring a permit for a gun, but it’s not ok to break the law prohibiting you from eating psychedelic mushrooms, then you’re not actually motivated by *fidelity to the law*, you’re motivated by something else and using the law as an excuse in one case but not the other.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  72. aphrael,

    While New York City is extremely dense, so are Philadelphia, Miami, Louisville and others that have concealed carry laws in place. Do we hear of wild west shootouts over parking spaces or the other horribles that some would suggest? No, or at least not often.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  73. @4 aphrael (4c4719) — 6/23/2022 @ 8:40 am

    even though I think the majority’s historical analysis is problematic (particularly its dismissal of the statute of northampton)

    May I ask why you think it’s problematic?

    By its plain text, the Statute of Northampton prohibited the carrying of arms in order to terrify others or to breach the peace.

    A concealed carry does neither of those.

    And the majority concluded that “no evidence indicating that these common-law limitations impaired the right of the general population to peaceable public carry.”

    whembly (7e0293)

  74. how can one be law-abiding while breaking the law?

    The case I was thinking of was a legislator. But yes, there is some cognitive dissonance.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  75. first, every person carrying a gun in a dense population is a person who has decided that there is a substantial possibility that their safety will depend on their ability to kill someone.

    every person carrying a gun is a person who already feels threatened. maybe the better question is why? pretending that it’s irrational doesn’t make that go away.

    how is this *not* threatening? how is not *intended* to be threatening?
    aphrael (4c4719) — 6/23/2022 @ 1:46 pm

    it makes sense that you might feel threatened by their making a mistake. this only applies to open carry though. it’s not reasonable to be feel threatened by a concealed weapon you don’t know about. it’s also not reasonable that they intend to make you feel threatened by the chance they’d make a mistake.

    their intent is directed at people who would threaten their life. that intent only extends to you to the degree you intend to threaten their life.

    frosty (9cba7f)

  76. their safety will depend on their ability to kill someone.

    As a last resort perhaps. There are many things they might do before they get to that point.

    Here’s a question in return: Do you feel safe, walking alone at night in New York City? IF so, what does your safety depend on?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  77. Firm splits with lawyers who won gun rights case at Supreme Court

    Two of the lawyers responsible for a major victory for gun rights forces at the Supreme Court on Thursday are parting with their prominent law firm after it announced it would no longer handle Second Amendment litigation.

    Former Solicitor General Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, a regular Supreme Court litigator, said they were launching their own firm after Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis decided to step back from gun-related litigation.

    “We were given a stark choice: either withdraw from ongoing representations or withdraw from the firm,” Clement said in a statement. “Anyone who knows us and our views regarding professional responsibility and client loyalty knows there was only one course open to us: We could not abandon ongoing representations just because a client’s position is unpopular in some circles.”
    ………
    Clement’s departure from Kirkland & Ellis echoes a similar episode about a decade ago when he left Atlanta-based King & Spalding after that firm moved to distance itself from Clement’s work to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law banning benefits for same-sex couples.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  78. I’m sure if anyone here has been mugged, it changes your perspective on what is safe and what is not. Certainly step one is to avoid areas where gang bangers bang. I’ve gone to events in big cities all of the time without feeling like I had to be packing. Know your surroundings and make a risk mitigation plan.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  79. California moves to fortify concealed carry limits after high court invalidates ‘good cause’ rule

    California’s concealed-carry permitting rules will almost certainly become more lax under a U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday nullifying a similar framework in New York — although Democratic elected officials quickly moved to take advantage of where the high court allowed them fortify their laws.

    Within hours of the court’s decision to strike down New York’s rules, Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta and state lawmakers announced legislation that would bar concealed firearms in places like courthouses and schools and require applicants to undergo assessments for whether they are dangerous to others, which could include checking for criminal records and restraining orders. Lawmakers said they hoped to move the bill through the Legislature and to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk as quickly as possible.
    ……..
    The California Department of Justice said the court’s decision invalidates the state’s rule that applicants must show cause for obtaining a permit, although Bonta said he believed the court allowed requirements like background checks or mandatory safety training.
    ……..
    The difficulty of getting a concealed carry permit tends to vary in California, with law enforcement in more urban and populous counties applying the ‘good cause’ standard more rigorously than officials in more conservative precincts. The Supreme Court ruling will likely do away with the requirement entirely.
    …….
    A broader suite of tough California gun control laws could also be in jeopardy. Laws banning high-capacity magazines, prohibiting assault weapons and requiring people to be 21 to purchase semiautomatic rifles are all moving through legal challenges.

    The Firearms Policy Coalition specifically vowed to use the court’s reasoning to file “many more important strategic lawsuits,” including seeking to unravel “bans on self-manufacturing firearms and so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large-capacity’ magazines.”


    The times, they are a-changin’…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  80. aphrael wrote:

    “law-abiding” persons do carry a pistol without a permit (not me this time)

    how can one be law-abiding while breaking the law?

    i’m reminded, yet again, that many people who claim to care about the law *per se* actually only care about specific laws. if you think it’s ok to break the law requiring a permit for a gun, but it’s not ok to break the law prohibiting you from eating psychedelic mushrooms, then you’re not actually motivated by *fidelity to the law*, you’re motivated by something else and using the law as an excuse in one case but not the other.

    It’s pretty obvious that some otherwise law-abiding people believe that their personal safety outweighs the law.

    There are also those who believe that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that the laws which restrict that, even just the permit requirement, are unconstitutional.

    Your point is valid, but I believe it needs expansion.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  81. “Leftwing Democrats who refuse to prosecute gun crimes (committed almost exclusively by their voting cohort) are very angry they can’t take gun away from law-abiding citizens (comprising almost exclusively the voting cohort that votes against them).”

    —-Ace

    Colonel Haiku (ec4b0d)

  82. There are also those who believe that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that the laws which restrict that, even just the permit requirement, are unconstitutional.

    All so know as the plain meaning.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  83. Mr M wrote:

    While New York City is extremely dense, so are Philadelphia, Miami, Louisville and others that have concealed carry laws in place. Do we hear of wild west shootouts over parking spaces or the other horribles that some would suggest? No, or at least not often.

    In Philly, you do, at least if your news source is something other than The Philadelphia Inquirer. The television stations cover the violence, with nice images of bullet casing littered streets, Fox 29 in particular, but the Inky, under publisher Elizabeth ‘Lisa’ Hughes and her determination that the newspaper would be an “anti-racist news organization” really does not. Miss Hughes wrote that the newspaper was:

    * – Establishing a Community News Desk to address long-standing shortcomings in how our journalism portrays Philadelphia communities, which have often been stigmatized by coverage that over-emphasizes crime.
    * – Creating an internal forum for journalists to seek guidance on potentially sensitive content and to ensure that antiracism is central to the journalism.
    * – Commissioning an independent audit of our journalism that resulted in a critical assessment. Many of the recommendations are being addressed, and a process for tracking progress is being developed.
    * – Training our staff and managers on how to recognize and avoid cultural bias.
    * – Examining our crime and criminal justice coverage with Free Press, a nonprofit focused on racial justice in media.

    What that meant was that the nation’s third oldest continuously published daily newspaper was not going to publish stories on crime if doing so would, as the Sacramento Bee more blatantly put it, “perpetuat(e) stereotypes about who commits crime in our community.”

    How has it worked? The Philadelphia Police Department sends out press releases, which the Inky uses, along the lines of “a 25 year old black male was shot at the intersection of Kensington and Allegheny Avenues,” but the newspaper, when it uses the press release in an overnight breaking news story, frequently to the point of being verbatim, changes it to “a 25 year old male was shot at the intersection of Kensington and Allegheny Avenues”.

    Actually, there’s frequently not even that much; often there are no stories in the Inky at all about someone being killed. In a city which the population were found to be 38.3% black, black Philadelphians are 85 to 90% likely to be the victims of shootings, both fatal or otherwise, and if the newspaper were to publish that, it could lead to the stereotype that black Philadelphians are responsible for the majority of crime in the city.

    Of course, that stereotype already exists, and everyone knows it.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  84. The Colonel quoted
    The Ace of Spades Headquarters
    To give us this gem:

    “Leftwing Democrats who refuse to prosecute gun crimes (committed almost exclusively by their voting cohort) are very angry they can’t take gun away from law-abiding citizens (comprising almost exclusively the voting cohort that votes against them).”

    Sadly, that’s too simplistic. Philadelphians knew exactly what they were getting with Larry Krasner, because they saw it during his first term as District Attorney, but in 2021 he won the Democratic nomination by a two-to-one margin over a competent and credible challenger, and then won the general election by a two-to-one margin. Mr Krasner received very strong support in the wealthier, mostly white neighborhoods which don’t see nearly as much crime and violence. His opponents only did well in the mostly white working-class neighborhoods in places like Bustleton.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  85. The times, they are a-changin’…….

    A they’re populism/insurrectionism dreams come true.

    … and Putin smiled.

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  86. I don’t conceal and carry because I hunt. But am happy my wife can.

    mg (8cbc69)

  87. ^ And

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  88. Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/23/2022 @ 12:25 pm

    Would you have that rule with cars? No training or testing of any kind? Even if car-driving was a “right”?

    That’s the way it used to be when automobiles were first getting startedd.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  89. A[nd] they’re populism/insurrectionism dreams come true.

    The January 6th insurrectionists weren’t rioting in support of gun control. It is an elitist idea.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  90. @89. You really don’t get it; pretty much all weren’t C&C either. Next time, thanks to the well protected, armed guarded, be-robed bureaucrats, an Ashli Babbitt type may bust be a C&C… and waving the Constitution… shoot back.

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  91. ^bust = just

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  92. @86. I don’t conceal and carry because I hunt

    Safer than being a target going to a grocery store these days, ain’t it. ‘Course oak trees don’t take coupons, though squirrel stew is still cheaper than $6/lb. 80/20 ground round. 😉

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  93. Well my my, maybe the mobs of little communist larvae demonstrating outside their homes gave scotus a wake up call?

    mg (8cbc69)

  94. 92
    Pheasant, Duck,Deer and Elk in the freezer.

    mg (8cbc69)

  95. @95. No insurrectionist, eh? Outta season ’til January… 😉

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  96. In a sparse but relentlessly caustic concurring opinion, the conservative Alito criticized his liberal colleagues for their dissent, blasting them for attempting to “obscure” the specific question the court had decided, and for referencing the recent mass shootings that have shocked the nation -CNN.com.

    Zealous, outspoken, mouthy. Dying to tell everyone how the cow eats the cabbage.

    Alito is the leaker.

    DCSCA (1e2fe7)

  97. Alito to address the mistakes in the dissent…

    Mistakes? So a differing opinion is a ‘mistake’???

    He’s quite a zealous and mouthy fella.

    He’s also the leaker.

    DCSCA (2cf16d) — 6/23/2022 @ 2:20 pm

    Maybe Alito (and not a schill for narcos or traffickers) did Scalia back in 2015…crew on crew, if you will. Not sufficiently conservative for his tastes

    urbanleftbehind (1ca1a9)

  98. Alito is fixing up to be pimp slapped by a black woman next season.

    urbanleftbehind (1ca1a9)

  99. It is the establishment democrats on orders from their corporate masters to keep the ghetto disarmed so their criminal auxillary are the only ones armed

    asset (1b12a7) — 6/23/2022 @ 12:48 pm

    It’s not that hard to get a gun in the hood if you really want one, irrespective of who’s actually in charge. For someone who went to school at ASU back when Tempe was a fairly anodyne, out of the way suburb, I can understand that this might be a startling concept.

    Would you have that rule with cars? No training or testing of any kind? Even if car-driving was a “right”?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 6/23/2022 @ 12:25 pm

    I’ve stated here before that I’m perfectly fine with treating firearms exactly like automobiles, as long as it’s a 1:1 correlation in rules. Doing so would immediately nuke most of the gun control statutes on the books.

    Factory Working Orphan (7a49ef)

  100. 97
    😎

    mg (8cbc69)

  101. Alito is fixing up to be pimp slapped by a black woman next season.

    Or a young SCOTUS clerk w/a future he threw under the bus. He;s at the end of his career; believes he should be CJ, been mouthy for years and made no secret of his zealotry. Until he’s outed as the leaker every one of those clerks who are now going to leave are going to have a cloud of suspicion over them- an asterisk by their names. It’s the kind of devious behavior you’d expect from a the mind set of a pope, circa 13th century:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/alito-13th-century-law-roe-opinion-snl/

    DCSCA (c8cf4f)

  102. It will be interesting to see if and how crime statistics change after people in CA and NY are allowed to legally carry concealed weapons.

    Nevada is one of the most libertarian states, but surprisingly doesn’t have a “constitutional carry” law like Arizona, Utah, Alaska, etc. One has to attend a four-hour classroom course, followed by a trip to the shooting range.

    I let my CCW lapse, and haven’t felt compelled to renew it. I don’t like the inconvenience of carrying a gun. I’m a stickler for comfortable clothing, and guns are irritating.

    I know a former Secret Service agent who became an ICE officer because he didn’t want to move his family away from Reno. He was so used to carrying a gun in the small of his back that he even did so in church. (He was a Mormon bishop.) I wish I were that immune to bodily senses.

    norcal (da5491)

  103. @104. It will be interesting to see if and how crime statistics change after people in CA and NY are allowed to legally carry concealed weapons.

    Lots of Paul Kersey wannabes in America. Should make for a good movie: or six:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbb4g4m68sc

    DCSCA (c8cf4f)

  104. @95, “Pheasant, Duck,Deer and Elk in the freezer.”

    What no RINO!? I hear they’re in season and no limit.

    AJ_Liberty (411e90)

  105. One of the things that California has done has been to keep concealable guns off the state’s approved roster. As of late, no guns are being added to the list and ALL handguns will be removed 1/1/2023, as none of them have the required microstamping feature.

    The removal of all handguns from commerce on 1/1/2023 will make any 2A right in California moot. I suspect that someone will sue.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  106. Once again, DCSCA chooses to spam.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  107. So, the 2nd Amendment Foundation is suing CA over the gun roster, but I note that one of the attorneys involved is John C. Eastman.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  108. Some information on ongoing 2A lawsuits: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  109. Mr Liberty wrote:

    @95, “Pheasant, Duck,Deer and Elk in the freezer.”

    What no RINO!? I hear they’re in season and no limit.

    Just because you’ve bagged them doesn’t mean you want to tag them.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  110. Looking at the political reaction in anti-gun states, I am reminded of the political reaction in the Old South to Brown and other civil rights cases. They say they’ll throw many new laws in the path of these decisions, but they and we know that not one of them will stand up.

    I wonder if intentional denial of civil rights is actionable against civil officials. What would a DeSantis DoJ do?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  111. Mr M wrote:

    Looking at the political reaction in anti-gun states, I am reminded of the political reaction in the Old South to Brown and other civil rights cases.

    Yet the worst actual reactions to Brown v Board of Education happened not in the Confederacy, but the Union, in Wilmington, Delaware, and in Boston.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  112. norcal wrote:

    It will be interesting to see if and how crime statistics change after people in CA and NY are allowed to legally carry concealed weapons.

    The statistics will be bogus anyway, since the ‘progressive’ prosecutors now in place there don’t charge people arrested for crimes, and the police are letting criminals they know won’t be charged walk.

    Get rid of the Chesa Boudins, and the crime stats will go up, not because there is more crime, but because there are more arrests and more prosecutions.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af)

  113. It’s so cute the way homeowners in LA County send their Ring videos to the cops when their packages are stolen.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  114. A good rundown of the CA handgun roster and how it is being used to outlaw handgun sales.

    California is pulling off a vanishing act right before everyone’s eyes. The list of semiautomatic handguns available for sale there is rapidly dwindling, thanks to the state’s “Not Unsafe Handgun Roster.”

    It won’t be too long before all semiautomatic handguns will be banned from sale in California – a step closer to gun control’s ultimate goal of banning lawful civilian firearm ownership. The California “Not Unsafe Handgun” law enacted in 2001 started a slow motion statewide handgun ban. The ban picked up momentum in May of 2013 when the 2007 law requiring microstamping on all new pistols became effective upon then-Attorney General Kamala Harris certifying microstamping technology was unencumbered by patent restrictions. There were 967 models available for lawful purchase when the roster was certified less than a decade ago. Today, there are under 250 available models, when different paint schemes are considered.

    In practice, [microstamping] doesn’t work. The inventor of the technology, Todd Lizotte, who holds the sole-source patent to etch microscopic codes on the face of a firing pin, agreed that the technology wasn’t ready for widespread commercial use.

    California lawmakers ignored that, passing another mandate in 2020 that every handgun must incorporate single-placement microstamping. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2020 that reduced the marking requirement to a single location but sped up the roster. For every one handgun that would be added, three would come off.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  115. @108. Pfft. Nobody asked what you had for dinner, Kevin- but thanks for sharing.

    DCSCA (40ff09)

  116. @108- Checked the ingredients of what goes into spam, Kevin?

    7,8,9,10,12,25,41,42,44,45,47,65,68,74,76,107,108,109, 110, 112, 115, 116… monosodium glutamate and water. 😉

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duFierM1yDg

    DCSCA (40ff09)

  117. Kevin’s posts are more interesting.

    norcal (da5491)

  118. @119. As is spam, egg, sausage and spam.

    DCSCA (21dd9f)

  119. OT- And speaking of spam, egg, sausage and spam:

    ‘YOU Take YOUR Seat’: Biden’s Notecard Has Step-By-Step Instructions For Everything, Like Walking Into Room And Sitting Down

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/you-take-your-seat-bidens-notecard-has-step-by-step-instructions-for-everything-like-walking-into-room-and-sitting-down

    OH MY GOD.

    25TH AMENDMENT TIME:

    Thanks to a Getty Image of the incident, readers can see that the text reads as follows:

    Offshore Wind Drop-By Sequence of Events

    -YOU enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants
    -YOU take YOUR seat
    -Press enters
    -YOU give brief comments (Minutes)
    -Press departs
    -YOU ask Liz Shuler AFL-CIO President a question
    -Note: Liz is joining virtually.
    -YOU thank participants.
    -You depart.

    “Uh, Houston, we’ve had a problem.” – Jim Lovell, CDR, Apollo 13, April 13, 1970

    DCSCA (7e69c6)

  120. @121 I know, right? And yet Trump still lost to him.

    Maybe it’s time for a new icon. Trump is becoming less relevant by the day.

    norcal (da5491)

  121. Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

    Senate easily passes bipartisan gun control bill, sending it to the House

    The US Senate approved a historic bipartisan gun control bill Thursday night following two recent horrific mass shootings, marking the most comprehensive piece of gun reform legislation passed by federal lawmakers in nearly three decades.

    The $13 billion measure was approved 65-33 and received enough Republican support to avoid a filibuster, a compromise that seemed far-fetched before a pair of 18-year-old gunmen used assault weapons to commit mass shootings at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and a Buffalo grocery store last month.

    https://nypost.com/2022/06/23/senate-easily-passes-bipartisan-gun-control-bill/

    DCSCA (3e4803)

  122. The origin and intent of the full 2nd amendment text can be traced directly to Article 6 of the Articles of Confederation, that ‘first try failure’ often overlooked for operationally governing the new U.S., quilled by the flawed Founding Fathers. There’s a reason ‘in order to form a more perfect Union’ is quilled into the Constitution preamble. The full text of the 2nd Amendment can be seen derived from the AoC’s Article 6, regarding maintaining militias in states. And defining what ‘constituted’ a militia in the late 18th century is essential for context, too- especially for a young and vulnerable country structurally faltering, amidst the vulturous world powers of that era. The immediate concern and clear intent was to create an operational government; the 10 amendments added as afterthoughts as the need, in the context of the times, was getting that operational government up and running in the wake of the Articles of Confederation failure.

    DCSCA (22a4c5)

  123. biden is an incompetent puppet and will do anything to screw this country

    mg (8cbc69)

  124. 15 decepticons sided with biden
    buh bye losers
    all republicans are a joke
    next up they will vote to take your money and land
    republicans are the worst people in the United States
    pos all day every day

    mg (8cbc69)

  125. @121 I know, right? And yet Trump still lost to him.

    Maybe it’s time for a new icon. Trump is becoming less relevant by the day.

    norcal (da5491) — 6/23/2022 @ 11:22 pm

    Yep. But it’s also time to recognize that Ds, NeverTrump, and Rs who give you the top 10 reasons you should vote for a D can’t be relied on to help pick a better choice.

    frosty (ce9da5)

  126. 1. 33. I made an error.

    Today is the last opinion issuing day, I thought it was June 30 or maybe even later (bases on what \I heard on the radio or TV a week or more ago)

    So the decision has to be announced today. The Justices will not be present.

    And the gun case came on the next to last day.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov

    The Court may announce opinions on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m. If more than one opinion will be issued, they will post in approximately ten minute intervals. The Court will not take the Bench.

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  127. -YOU give brief comments (Minutes

    This takes the longest time. Now maybe what to say is separately on a teleprompter.

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  128. 85. The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af) — 6/23/2022 @ 3:31 pm

    Mr Krasner received very strong support in the wealthier, mostly white neighborhoods which don’t see nearly as much crime and violence. His opponents only did well in the mostly white working-class neighborhoods in places like Bustleton.

    Is something (like arrests and prosection?) preventing crime from expanding into wealthier neighborhoods?

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  129. 83. The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (91f7af) — 6/23/2022 @ 3:23 pm

    Of course, that stereotype already exists, and everyone knows it.

    You might not think so listening to some national right wing Republicans whose talking points instead say it is illegal aliens/

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  130. The key factor is differential association.

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  131. Roe and Casey overturned!

    whembly (7e0293)

  132. KABOOM. So far, the early indications are not a lot of change from the Alito draft.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  133. Now let’s see what the Death Party is ALL about.

    Colonel Haiku (7385f4)

  134. “Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  135. @136

    “Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 6/24/2022 @ 7:35 am

    Would everyone please, just this one time, excuse me for such a crude comment?

    Please? If not, just immediately ignore the following:

    I’m fapping so hard imma need to see a doctor!

    whembly (7e0293)

  136. Finally. The equivalent decison to Dred Scott is overturned. Millions of lives extinguished over the years cry out in triumph.

    NJRob (b5c605)

  137. @138. RE:DS- that went well, didn’t it:

    ‘While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage, deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern states, and hastened the eventual explosion of their differences into the American Civil War.‘ -source, wikifuselit.gottamatchbub.d’oh!

    DCSCA (bd162c)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2025 secs.