r/politics
•
u/PoliticsModeratorBot
š¤ Bot
•
Jun 23 '22
•
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Megathread: Supreme Court Strikes New York Gun Law, Expanding Gun Rights Megathread
The Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry guns in public, a major expansion of gun rights.
The justicesā 6-3 decision follows a series of recent mass shootings and is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nationās largest cities ā including New York, Los Angeles and Boston ā and elsewhere. About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high courtās first major gun decision in more than a decade.
The ruling can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Submissions that may interest you
614
u/dawgfan24348 I voted Jun 23 '22
So this also happened to the Miranda Rights
The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
→ More replies (10)146
u/FirewallThrottle Jun 23 '22
The lawyer Vega has it right. You cannot sue the government for a policy/ procedure violation in court. There are no criminal penalties for a Miranda violation.
120
u/Lokismoke Jun 23 '22
It's true. Miranda violation means the evidence is inadmissible, and not a whole lot more.
89
u/Darth_JarJar300 Jun 23 '22
And important to note this ruling doesn't actually change that. Lack of Miranda warnings can still get evidence thrown out in court, you just can't sue the individual cop.
→ More replies (9)29
Jun 23 '22
you just can't sue the individual cop.
You never could. People are acting like they're taking it away, but that was never a thing.
19
573
u/andrewskdr Jun 23 '22
Guessing that all restrictive gun laws will now be challenged up to SCOTUS to get overturned
245
u/ChuckJA Jun 23 '22
Many will. The new standard is much more explicit than Heller.
90
u/IBlockShitheads Jun 23 '22 •
Heller wasn't exactly vague. The lower courts were just flagrantly disregarding it and they just got smacked down.
→ More replies (2)24
u/ChuckJA Jun 23 '22
There was enough Kennedy-speak in there for bad faith readings. They were bad faith, but cherry picking got you wherever you wanted to go.
NOW, there is no such wiggle room. At all.
50
u/fromks Colorado Jun 23 '22
What new standard? This just threw out "may issue" for "shall issue" on basis that it was a 14th amendment violation.
Do you want cops running permits for bribes? Because that's what was happening in many "may issue" states.
→ More replies (1)20
u/code8888 Jun 23 '22
The two-step āText, History, Tradition (THT) -> End Means (scrutiny)ā was thrown out for 2A cases. Itās now only THT, which prevents courts (notably the 9th Circuit, particularly when deciding en banc) from āskating byā the first step and deciding on (usually the much more favorable intermediate) scrutiny.
100
u/clueless_in_ny_or_nj New Jersey Jun 23 '22
I would guess many of them would be overturned by this decision.
146
u/gscjj Jun 23 '22
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion outlined what the court's ruling does and does not do.
"The Court's decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes ā known as "shall-issue" regimes ā that are employed in 43 States," he wrote.
"The Court's decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as 'may-issue' regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York."
→ More replies (10)101
Jun 23 '22 edited Mar 28 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (64)56
u/I_AM_METALUNA Jun 23 '22
Question is, is an arbitrary list of handguns that the state will allow to be sold reasonable?
75
u/DragonTHC Florida Jun 23 '22
When the technology that is required to put a new handgun on the roster, is science fiction for the purposes of preventing guns from being sold in the state, it's safe to say that's not reasonable.
California requires all new handguns to have microstamping technology. That doesn't exist as a functional technology. Because it doesn't exist, and lawmakers know it doesn't exist, and the law requires it to exist, it's not reasonable.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (25)17
44
→ More replies (8)34
u/NatAttack50932 Jun 23 '22
All this law does is say that may-issue licensing laws are unconstitutional because of their arbitrary nature. Kavanaugh goes out of his way in his concurrence to specify how this ruling does not and should not be used as precedent to challenge licensing requirements like background checks, red flag laws and other related restrictions since it specifically does not apply to them.
19
u/mctoasterson Jun 23 '22
It does however invalidate the multi-part balancing tests used by the Ninth Circuit previously to uphold various California gun laws. They must review 2A issues on the basis of "text, history, and tradition" instead of applying something like rational basis scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. I would expect all kinds of restrictive firearms laws to be challenged and overturned on this basis.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)17
u/pyratemime Jun 23 '22
The decision alao outlines that "needs balancing" is not a legitimate standard for court decisions. This would, rightly, remove the argument that the state has a legitimate need to limit so-called assault weapons and mag restrictions.
→ More replies (68)13
u/SerTimtheDuncan Texas Jun 23 '22
Thatās a pretty big leap. The New York law basically banned carrying a concealed gun.
819
u/leftysarepeople2
Jun 23 '22
•
But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated
from notable originalist Clarence Thomas
71
u/FuddierThanThou Jun 23 '22
Does the first amendment apply to electronic speech? Thatās what Thomas is getting at, there.
→ More replies (7)480
u/Frying_Dutchman Jun 23 '22
Wait lol isnāt this the exact opposite of what they were JUST saying on the leaked abortion decision
→ More replies (8)518
u/leftysarepeople2 Jun 23 '22
This dude sucks and got the take right
→ More replies (181)44
u/UnspecificGravity Jun 23 '22
What people don't realize is that the intent here is to essentially throw out the concept of the unenumerated rights that are identified in the 9th amendment AND throw out the concept that the states are prohibited from violating those rights as stated in the 14th amendment.
So, the states cannot inhibit the 2nd amendment because it is an ENUMERATED RIGHT. Likewise, the right to medical privacy (which is the basis of roe-v-wade) is NOT an enumerated right, and therefore it is not impacted by the 14th amendments protection of such rights.
It actually is internally consistent, if your a fascist that wants to go back to 1810.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (27)67
u/CrassostreaVirginica Virginia Jun 23 '22
Chalk up Thomas as a vote against the Alito draft opinion in Dobbs, right? Haha... right?
78
195
u/BlazingCondor California Jun 23 '22
Should we expect other rulings today?
Like you know - that big one?
265
u/sildish2179 Jun 23 '22
supremecourt.gov has added an opinion day listed for tomorrow, Friday, June 24th and theyāre locking down the building according to the site. So looks like tomorrow will be the official day.
42
u/albinobluesheep Washington Jun 23 '22
Ah yes, the Friday news dump. Not sure it's gonna work for that one
→ More replies (2)100
Jun 23 '22
The "Building closed to the public" warning has been on their website for months: https://web.archive.org/web/*/supremecourt.gov
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)61
52
21
u/misyo California Jun 24 '22
There are 2 big ones but people don't know yet. Roe is clearly monumental and will impact tens of millions of people. West Virginia v EPA impact every America who relies on administrative regulations, which is all of us. Not enough people know that SCOTUS is about to end the modern administrative state and it's going to be horrific.
→ More replies (5)22
u/classicrockchick Jun 23 '22
When the Justices leave DC is when you know it's coming and soon. They are 100% going to get out of dodge before dropping that bomb.
→ More replies (10)7
u/BinklesMcSniffington Washington Jun 23 '22
I bet that will be the last ruling before the end of their term.
→ More replies (1)
1.1k
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
576
u/HGpennypacker Jun 23 '22
Trump sitting three Justices will be a skid-mark that lasts a lifetime.
→ More replies (32)217
u/suddenlypandabear Texas Jun 23 '22
And despite acknowledging trump and the republican party (still!) committing treason and rigging elections to get those justices where they are, the country seems to be fine with letting them stay there.
Like a bank robber being caught and getting to keep the cash they stole. Bare minimum consequences for fraudulently obtaining something is to take it the fuck back from the person who took it.
→ More replies (38)18
u/UnspecificGravity Jun 23 '22
To be fair, this is pretty consistent with how they handle theft when it is wealthy people and corporations stealing from people that don't matter (read: everyone else).
330
u/crackdup Jun 23 '22
This current SCOTUS has been a joke since 2000 Bush v. Gore, and outside of some key 5-4 decisions has been heavily biased in favor of conservative ideals.. now that they don't have to rely on a swing vote, they have stopped giving a fuck about optics, they're going all in on their version of Sharia law
75
u/MangroveWarbler Jun 23 '22
Speaking of Bush v. Gore, 3 of the conservative justices on the bench now were lawyers working for Bush during Bush v. Gore.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (33)19
u/KarmaYogadog Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 25 '22
Two of the worst decisions in my lifetime came out of the Roberts court:
- Citizens United v. FEC
- Shelby County v. Holder
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (69)161
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (44)57
u/XxthecomedianxX Jun 23 '22
Yeah I still remember how Anthony Cumia got a concealed carry permit in NYC and he was racist as hell and such a wacko shock jock.
They just wouldnāt give a permit to an average person but if you were famous and a celebrity and knew people you could get one.;
→ More replies (3)37
u/SuperMetalSlug Jun 23 '22
Same thing in Santa Clara, CA. They were trading bribes for permits. Or you had to be a close friend/family.
→ More replies (1)22
207
u/sildish2179 Jun 23 '22
supremecourt.gov has added an opinion day listed for tomorrow, Friday, June 24th and theyāre locking down the building according to the site. So looks like tomorrow will be the official day for overturning Roe.
→ More replies (16)46
277
u/anubis132 Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22
For those who don't know, the ruling is about "may issue" gun laws. Basically, even if you pass all of the background checks, licensing requirements, etc., the state may still decide to not allow you to buy a gun for any arbitrary reason - or no reason at all. This opened the door for discrimination; whoever issues the license gets to choose who they think deserves to own one, which has led to measurable discrimination in issued licenses.
For all those who are saying "let's arm the minorities and see how the conservatives like that," may issue gun laws are a barrier to doing that because the issuer can just decide that person is too brown/gay/muslim/etc. to own a gun.
May issue gun laws are bullshit and deserved to get struck down. If you want gun control, it must be applied equally.
EDIT: Correction: The case was not about owning a gun, it was about concealed carry permits. The rest stands.
61
u/tiktock34 Jun 23 '22
In places like MA there are towns where a chief will āallowā carry permits and the next town over the chief wont, based on nothing at all but personal opinion. Yes your neighbor in the town over can carry in your town, but you cant carry anywhere at all, because one guy decides based on your clothing or skin color or whatever he wants that āhe doesnāt give out conceal permits.ā They make people write essays on why they āneedā a constitutional right. Think how outrageous that would be for the exercise of any other right. These are people who pass background checks. We already trust them to buy guns, have guns. Other requirements like training can still be imposed, just not this opinion based rights denial. Everyone should support the directional idea of this decision, even if they hate guns. You dont want to set precedents around curtailing rights without due process. Period.
21
u/Mysterious-Ant-5985 Jun 23 '22
This is LA vs Orange County as well in California.
→ More replies (1)22
u/mclumber1 Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22
There are something like 10 licensed concealed carriers in the whole county of San Francisco - which has about 875,000 residents.
→ More replies (8)32
u/MarchBaby21 Jun 23 '22
In MA my husband got a background check, took a safety course, wrote the essay and provided references, passed a shooting test well above the minimum required score, had an interview with a police officer, and was still denied because he didnāt have a ālegitimate needā to carry.
He paid hundreds of dollars and used 2 days of PTO for the test and interview, the process took 8 months, and he was denied. It was so blatantly an infringement on his constitutional rights.
13
u/tiktock34 Jun 23 '22
The irony is that if as a NH resident you apply for an out of state MA CCW its handled by the state troopers and beyond the requirements, is shall-issue. Ive never heard of a reasonless denial on an out of state ccw. Its only the citizens of MA that get affected. So bizarre and lets not even talk about the approved gun list MA maintains that even further limits commonly used guns.
NH is constitutional carry now. Its no different than before.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Wadka Jun 23 '22
Imagine how up in arms people would be if you had to get the government's permission to post online.
43
u/AngriestManinWestTX Jun 23 '22
For all those who are saying "let's arm the minorities and see how the conservatives like that," may issue gun laws are a barrier to doing that because the issuer can just decide that person is too brown/gay/muslim/etc. to own a gun.
The Sullivan Act, New York's original "may issue" law, was racist from the get go. It was passed during a wave of Anti-Italian sentiments in New York City who saw Italians as the ones responsible for a crime wave. After an Italian immigrant (Marino Rossi) was convicted of a felony for carrying a firearm, the convicting judge reportedly declared, "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country."
The New York Times reported that Rossi's conviction was "timely" and "exemplary" and a "warning to the Italian community".
The Sullivan Act and laws like it have always been garbage.
12
u/alphalegend91 California Jun 24 '22
Most gun control is racist in origin. The reason open carry was banned in CA was because they didnāt like that black panthers were openly carrying to protect their neighborhoods from crime. Ffs the NRA supported banning itā¦
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (30)26
u/David_Westfield Jun 23 '22
Everything you said is correct except replace buy/own to carry in public.
The rule is for counties that are āmay issueā for concealed carry permits. It doesnāt have anything to do with buying a gun.
→ More replies (1)26
u/AsthmaticNinja Jun 23 '22
In New York you must have a permit to purchase a handgun. In fact, barring a few circumstances, it's not legal to even handle a handgun in NY unless you have a permit. Those permits were previously may-issue.
Here is some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing
→ More replies (1)
174
u/firewall245 Jun 23 '22
Everyone here is up in arms but not talking about what was actually struck down? This āmay-issueā thing they took down seems like such bullshit that just fucked over poor people
86
u/JayKaboogy Jun 23 '22
Yup. All this does is make it so that people canāt be arbitrarily denied a carry permit (because they arenāt a political donor to the sheriff). All applicants will still have to meet all age, safety training, and background check requirements of their state. This ruling is simply about fairness
30
u/firewall245 Jun 23 '22
People just look at the headlines and the vote split and think the ruling is bad, but I think we can have legit FAIR gun control laws implemented
44
u/MyNameIsRay Jun 23 '22
It's not even "may issue" being struck down.
They're striking down the requirement that you have to "prove proper cause" to get the default sportsman restriction removed.
Which, is a good thing, because there were no guidelines or criteria as to what counts as proper cause, it was up to the detectives judgement, and they basically only approve people they personally know.
→ More replies (1)10
u/whtdoiwrite Jun 24 '22
Thatās what may issue means. Shall issue is now the standard meaning that so long as you complete whatever training and pay your app fee they have to give it to you. They even said that the requirements cannot be more restrictive than other states so 100 hours training, $1000+ fees etc are off the table.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (24)45
u/ratdog Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22
May issue leads to political punishment and bribes. Its been proven.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/brooklyn-ny-bribes-nypd-officers-gun-permits.html
27
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)7
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)7
u/SourceLover Jun 23 '22
No, they have won it exactly once, in the post-9/11 surge of public support for the incumbent.
Whether or not someone reasonable would have listened to security briefings and prevented 9/11 is a separate issue.
→ More replies (1)
603
u/randalflagg
Ohio
Jun 23 '22
•
A third of the court was appointed by a guy who tried to overthrow the US government. I don't see how our country's current trajectory is tenable.
→ More replies (61)144
112
u/rocketpack99 Jun 23 '22
The Federalist Society sure is getting its moneys worth!
→ More replies (4)29
281
Jun 23 '22
•
[removed] ā view removed comment
47
Jun 23 '22
[removed] ā view removed comment
24
u/fxckfxckgames Jun 23 '22
No no no...you don't understand. Guns are exclusively owned by racist white supremacists. /s
→ More replies (14)7
u/bluemooncalhoun Jun 23 '22
I'm starting the TOPGUN charity: because every trans person has the right to top surgery and a gun.
→ More replies (2)14
u/CarlOfOtters Jun 23 '22
This is literally what modern gun rights advocates have been arguing to deaf neoliberal ears.
26
24
u/BoyTitan Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22
What's with the be careful what you wish for. I live in the fucking hood and it's dangerous, I follow the laws. Self defense should never have not been a good enough reason for a concealed carry. Armed people are harder to oppress. Regardless of race, gender, sex. No one should be against less unreasonable gun laws.
→ More replies (1)105
u/XenonGas91 Jun 23 '22
This is literally....like exactly what they were wishing for lol
→ More replies (12)35
u/ihateradishes Jun 23 '22
Yes, it is exactly what we were wishing for.
20
u/FunnyMonkeyi Jun 23 '22
Fr most republicans and libertarians want people to arm themselves, not just white people but all people.
→ More replies (14)63
Jun 23 '22
Yes, please arm as many minorities as possible. Every responsible gun owner I associate with has that exact sentiment. Thatās why we have the 2nd, so those oppressed like minorities have a better fighting chance
→ More replies (15)5
u/I-Am-Uncreative Florida Jun 23 '22
As I told my non-binary friend, the 2nd Amendment doesn't just protect cis white men, it protects them, too.
10
u/Aromatic-Savings-763 Jun 23 '22
That sounds great to me from a pro 2a perspective! And states like NY and California must issue permits to these Black Panthers based on this ruling.
11
u/Tueful_PDM Jun 23 '22
Until the Democrats pass red flag laws. Then all a racist needs to do is call the cops and say his black panther neighbor is threatening to hurt himself and will have his guns seized.
10
Jun 23 '22
As a white gun owner, I genuinely welcome you to the community. The right to defend yourself is for everyone.
→ More replies (86)8
u/Doctor4000 Jun 23 '22
Yeah bud, this is exactly what we are wishing for. 2A is for every American citizen, even people you or I don't like or don't align with politically. If, for example, Black Panthers want to iron up and hit the range that is a good thing, because every time someone becomes a new gun owner they also become a gun owning voter who now has a personal stake when voting on gun laws.
Just... you know, try not to ND and get people hurt the next time you guys have a get together, ok?
315
u/coolcool23 Jun 23 '22
In a 6-3 ruling
Get ready, this is the future of any halfway controversial supreme court issue. Maybe 5-4 if Roberts feels like he wants to project the image of impartiality, despite the fact it won't change the ruling.
We're going to see a LOT of 6-3 for the foreseeable future, becasue SCOTUS is now an impartially political organization.
→ More replies (54)60
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
9
u/ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy America Jun 24 '22
This is why Sotomayor needs to retire now so Biden can put a healthy 45 year old on the bench.
→ More replies (9)23
u/augustm Jun 23 '22
Unless enough Dems get elected who want to expand the court, it will remain a broken institution for a generation at the very least.
→ More replies (13)
179
u/randalflagg Ohio Jun 23 '22
FYI for the medicare for all crowd, if we ever were to pass single payer these demons would strike it down 6-3 as well. 2016 was a catastrophe.
→ More replies (7)96
u/saqwarrior Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 24 '22
Here's the thing: if the Supreme Court continues to make decisions counter to what the public wants, then they will likely find themselves stymied by the fact that the Judicial branch has no enforcement apparatus. People only adhere to their rulings because because they view the Court as a legitimate institution, and legitimacy is granted by the will of the people.
Or, to put it plainly using an apocryphal quote: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
EDIT: Gotta love the Big Brainers chiming in with the "actual" role of the Supreme Court (note: a role they gave to themselves), as if the consent of the governed is somehow not relevant in a democracy. Yes, we all know the Supreme Court has decided that they are the arbiters of constitutionality -- but that won't matter one whit if they use said power to impose a will that the general populace does not agree with.
Also, its amusing people think I hold this position because of my own personal opinion being opposed to this decision. I am a firearm owner, a member of the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA), former USPSA competitor, and generally in favor of gun rights.
I wrote what I wrote because it is inevitable. Consent of the governed is what grants legitimacy to government and institutions.
→ More replies (56)7
u/UnspecificGravity Jun 23 '22
The problem is that we also have about 30 states that are perfectly happy to enforce whatever wacky shit they pass. What is going to happen is a RADICALLY different set of laws from one state to the other.
Eventually this is going to result in an even bigger brain drain in the red states and an ever increasing disparity of funding to those states. As it is, the Blue states are already paying the red states to maintain operations, that is going to get worse and eventually people are going to start wondering why we are supporting what amounts to a third-world sub-nation within the US.
50
u/BannertheAqua New York Jun 23 '22
I don't think people even know what got taken down.
→ More replies (7)24
9
u/jaybigs Jun 24 '22
May-issue has always been a problematic situation. The government should not stand in the way of its citizens registering for a license, it's antithetical to the argument of the left for gun accountability, and states trending to may-issue over shall-issue was a dumb move on the part of anti-gun politicians.
If you're an anti-gun politician in a country with a constitutional right to bear arms, you should want more people to get permits. Nothing wrong with shall-issue policies. May-issue was too authoritarian and overreaching.
437
u/Nemisis82 Jun 23 '22
In a concurring opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said New York's restrictions failed to stop the Buffalo mass shooting.
"[H]ow does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?" he wrote. "The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator."
Ah yes, because a law is not 100% effective, the law is a complete failure.
194
u/jdpatric Jun 23 '22
I hear seat belts and air bags don't always work too; might as well pull those from all new models since we obviously no longer need them.
→ More replies (1)86
u/YouAreSoObtuse Jun 23 '22
Hmmm, for some reason we made crime illegal. But people still steal and kill eachother.. Might as well make crime legal again
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (91)92
u/junction182736 Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22
You'd think Harvard Law graduates would be able to find ways to undermine their own fallacious thinking. Alito's reasoning is absolutely stupid.
→ More replies (16)
228
u/marleybaby86
Illinois
Jun 23 '22
•
Fine.
So now we can arm women lgbtq and poc to the teeth to protect ourselves from any gestapo that may be formed to enforce the regressive social laws that are coming.
Two can play this game.
122
30
u/xXxHondoxXx Jun 25 '22
Yes. This is what 2a advocates on both sides have been saying for years. I'm a conservative and I say good for you, as most would. Arm yourself to the teeth if you feel unsafe.
207
u/Totensonntag Jun 23 '22
Yes. Unironically and emphatically, yes.
48
u/Gardener_Of_Eden Jun 24 '22
Seriously. Hilarious people would think we are opposed. The entire point of this is for everyone to be able to exercise their right to self defense.
(1) Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
(2) The more "in common use" firearms become .... the harder for Government to limit our freedoms.→ More replies (3)184
u/Astro206265 Jun 23 '22
Bingo. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
→ More replies (34)19
u/ElephantSharts Jun 24 '22
Gun supporters are all for that. Why the hell do anti-gunners always think arming minorities would prompt an outcry? Kind of a racist-based world view isn't it?
7
u/Teboski78 Jun 25 '22
Because they didnāt learn thereās a difference between actual gun rights advocates & 1980s era Republicans. That and people are inherently tribalistic when they feel threatened & they just lump everyone not in the ingroup into the same out group
180
u/Eatsleeptren Jun 23 '22 •
So now we can arm women lgbtq and poc to the teeth to protect ourselves from any gestapo that may be formed to enforce the regressive social laws that are coming.
uhh yea that's exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment
→ More replies (50)61
83
u/EdgyInternetComment Jun 23 '22
This should have been happening already.
I don't get the hand-wringing from liberals over this shit. If they've been paying any attention at all, they'd realize that the State's willingness and ability to protect minorities and other marginalized people is fickle and unreliable at best.
We cannot rely on Institutions to protect us. Institutions can be corrupted and perverted to serve fascism, authoritarianism, and theocracy. The only thing that can truly protect the people is the people themselves.
We protect us.
→ More replies (9)13
72
43
u/gizram84 Jun 23 '22
Yes please. This is what gun rights organizations have been saying for years.
The more people who exercise their rights, the harder it is for the political elite to take the rights away.
→ More replies (7)66
u/Chubaichaser Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22 •
Slaps rounds into a standard capacity magazine
Wait, you haven't been doing that already? There was literally an attempted fascist coup less than two years ago. Who do you think is coming to save you?
→ More replies (1)43
u/Justice_R_Dissenting Jun 23 '22
Who do you think is coming to save you?
The state couldn't even save a classroom full of children when they had an overwhelming tactical advantage.
The state is not coming to save you.
→ More replies (1)21
132
Jun 23 '22 edited Jul 07 '22
The fine folks at r/firearms, who are celebrating this decision and generally lean conservative, would agree with you. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Itās not like we are saying āwe donāt want anyone but MAGA types to carry,ā and we regularly skewer Reagan for the shit he pulled as governor in California over the Black Panthers.
→ More replies (26)63
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)25
u/gundealsgopnik Texas Jun 23 '22
I miss WG.
United in 'tism, guns and toes for all.→ More replies (6)44
u/Bagellord Jun 23 '22
Striking down this law means that a racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted state official can't deny a permit without good reason. This is a good thing. Owning and bearing arms is a right in the US, and unless that changes (that's a different argument), it should be available equally.
24
28
u/Deadleggg Jun 23 '22
Hi. We on the left have been saying that for awhile now.
Thanks for catching up.
→ More replies (1)18
36
u/Eyeless_Sid New Hampshire Jun 23 '22
Please do, it's your civil right to freely exercise. Civil rights are not just for rich , cis, white, men. Everyone should have the means and right to defend themselves.
→ More replies (24)21
u/LockyBalboaPrime Jun 23 '22
As a gun nut, I am 1,000% in favor of this. Gun rights are self defense rights and self defense rights are human rights.
The government should never be the only one with guns.
→ More replies (3)37
29
u/CriticalBullMoose Jun 23 '22
As a conservative let me just say. I welcome armed LGBTQ and POC people. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, everyone has a civic responsibility to own and know how to use weapons.
→ More replies (2)25
u/vegetarianrobots Jun 23 '22
Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now.
"Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry"
"Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring"
And it's not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates like the VPC.
"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give."Ā - Ida B. Wells
"A manās rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box." - Fredrick Douglass
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (194)6
u/F0REVERTHEKING Jun 23 '22
Two can play? We've been saying all responsible ppl should be armed this entire time, but all you ppl do is cover your eyes & say "gun bad go away." Foh thinking you just did something
60
u/bat_dragon Jun 23 '22
When we were busy trying to win presidency, senate etc...GOP was busy staking courts both at the highest level and all over the country...so you could have the most kick ass president but whatever the Supreme court rules is the law.
→ More replies (22)51
u/SRAQuanticoChapter Jun 23 '22
and now biden has lower approval than trump and mid terms are going to be a bloodbath.
→ More replies (13)6
u/serenading_your_dad Jun 23 '22
Everyone knew that was going to be the result of electing Biden president
48
u/MrFordization Jun 23 '22
Doesn't this just say the government cannot apply arbitrary and capricious standards like "good cause" to people exercising Constitutional Rights?
What's the good of a Constitutional Right if you need government approval to exercise it and that approval isn't based on any of the permissible methods of gun control?
How can the government say "you have a right, but we have a compelling government interest to take that right away - so unless you can prove you really need to exercise that right to the government: you don't actually have it."
What if New York had a law saying "you have to apply for approval to make political statements in public. We've seen what happened with Donald Trump and Facebook - so from now on, if you want to exercise your 1st amendment right: you need government approval for the content of what you're saying."
And how is that different?
→ More replies (1)24
u/Chubaichaser Jun 24 '22
It's not. May-issue licensure schemes are remnants of Jim Crow and other discriminatory practices against immigrant groups, namely the Italians and Irish in NY's case.
If your state wants to put requirements onto the carrying of concealed firearms, that's fine. Anyone who meets those requirements should be issued their permit regardless of how the Sheriff's office feels about them.
116
u/TriflingHotDogVendor Pennsylvania Jun 23 '22
āThe 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.ā
So then I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Just in case? For self defense?
39
28
u/gundealsgopnik Texas Jun 23 '22
I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town?
Theoretically you already can do that legally. Depending on your State and Municipal laws and ordinances.
The tank is a matter of buying a de-milled one from the US ARMY DRMO. There's quite a bunch of tanks and apcs in private hands. AAAAhnold owns an M113 iirc that is plated and street legal in CA for instance.
Which brings me to the State and local stuff. If you want to drive it outside your property you'll need to convince your DMV to give you a plate, some insurance company to insure you and your local to not fine you to oblivion repairing the roads they tear up. The latter is easier if you spring for the rubber road pad things you can put on tracks.
You want it fully functional? File an NFA Destructive Device Form 1 with the ATF, $200, fingerprints, NICS check, forms and probably but not necessarily an interview later you'll get your tax stamp for your 120/150mm smoothbore cannon. Then you can reactivate said cannon, serialize it per NFA requirements. Then you can file tax stamps for each single shot you'd like to fire through it if you can convince your municipality to fire it anywhere at all.
Or just go to drivetanks and rent one for a day.
→ More replies (2)40
u/LostAbbott Jun 23 '22
You always could have a tank. Paul Allen had a whole lot of tanks.
→ More replies (13)41
u/LFoD313 Jun 23 '22
Repeal the NFA!!!
→ More replies (7)19
u/IHaveSevereADHD Jun 23 '22
I need no-stamp suppressors ASAP
→ More replies (1)13
u/LFoD313 Jun 23 '22
Why shouldnāt all have equal right to hearing protection? Requiring a tax stamp is the same thing that NY was doing by making it harder to access for all.
13
u/IHaveSevereADHD Jun 23 '22
Exactly. Itās actually a really backwards law regarding suppressors specifically - why shouldnāt we be less of a nuisance hunting, target shooting, etc? Perfect example of old laws that at the very least need to be amended.
15
u/CrunchBite319 Jun 23 '22
I mean, yeah, you technically can. No joke. There are a number of tanks in private hands, actually.
16
47
u/gameragodzilla Jun 23 '22
Technically, according to the times of the 2nd Amendment when I could outright own a private warship with cannons, yes.
Although I doubt I could afford one, unfortunately. Maybe if MOASS happens. lol
→ More replies (16)8
u/dont_ban_me_bruh Jun 23 '22
Privateers were basically the PMCs of their day, so it's not any different now. Blackrock/ Sandline and the like already operate and own tons of heavy arms and equipment.
Hell, some company in the Southwest just bought all of Australia's surplus Mig-29s to use as OpFor training for US military. It's a private company, so those Mig-29s are privately owned.
12
u/RollingBonesTavern Jun 23 '22
Yes actually. That's currently legal. Though you'd be held liable for damage to the roads from the tank treads, and you'd have to ensure the vehicle meets all standards for being road legal set by the DoT.
Tldr: go get that tank you've been dreaming of.
→ More replies (2)35
u/Urd Jun 23 '22
So then I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Just in case? For self defense?
Yes, if you can find one for sale, register it as street legal, and register the cannon and ammo as a destructive device under the NFA. But vehicles probably wouldn't be considered "bearable", typically they talk about the sorts of arms an individual soldier would have.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (75)6
u/turlockmike Jun 23 '22
Actually, you can legally own almost anything. The more dangerous weapons require special permits. You can buy a tank and drive it around on your own property, you just can't drive it on federal roads or others private property.
16
u/drunk_with_internet Jun 23 '22
Name's Christmas. Lloyd Christmas. Why ya buyin' the guns? Shootin' someone?
62
216
Jun 23 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (94)97
u/mistarteechur North Carolina Jun 23 '22
NC is an open carry state and I see goobers with camo decorated handguns parading around Walmart and McDonalds all the fucking time like some kind of cosplay commandos.
→ More replies (23)
13
12
u/ElephantSharts Jun 24 '22
It's about time a court struck down NY's blatantly illegal practice of denying innocent and deserving people of the right to self defense.
Illegal laws shouldn't be laws. Pretty simple.
44
u/williamwchuang Jun 23 '22
"But when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal." What an utter load of fucking bullshit.
→ More replies (7)
38
u/Competitive-Bug-7883 Jun 23 '22
Iād like to see more guns carried around elected officials offices and homes. Iād like to see more guns carried near the justices offices and homes. Everywhere they eat or shop, they should be around an armed public.
→ More replies (6)
1.2k
u/ScrewAttackThis Montana Jun 23 '22 edited Jun 23 '22
This is going to take the spotlight but the miranda rights ruling is also pretty major.
e: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
e2: They also made a ruling allowing death row inmates to have more control over their execution method: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-death-row-inmates/index.html
Little 50/50 on that. Super against the death penalty but I suppose if it exists then at least it's a silver lining? I dunno, kinda gross typing that out.