Supreme Court reviewing New York Carry Law

[Hank6046]

Can't believe that this hasn't been talked about on here yet.

"A majority of Supreme Court justices indicated Wednesday that they believe Americans generally have a right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense and that a New York law requiring special need for such a permit is too restrictive."

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/gun-rights-case-supreme-court/2021/11/03/6b9a75d8-3c13-11ec-a493-51b0252dea0c_story.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdj3wtnm_7o

[eightmillimeter]

I listened to the arguments. Sotomayor and Breyer’s questions and comments were the expected trash. We will win, but the ultimate decision and reasoning isn’t likely to give good grounds in other contexts moving forward, it will be a narrowly written decision.

[Hank6046]

I listened to the arguments. Sotomayor and Breyer’s questions and comments were the expected trash. We will win, but the ultimate decision and reasoning isn’t likely to give good grounds in other contexts moving forward, it will be a narrowly written decision.

You don't think that the prescient that this would set could lead to the states tearing down their carry laws? I look to the Chicago areas just south of me that "banned Assault rifles" in their particular suburb only to have it overturned because of DC v Heller.

[Business_Casual]

You don't think that the prescient that this would set could lead to the states tearing down their carry laws? I look to the Chicago areas just south of me that "banned Assault rifles" in their particular suburb only to have it overturned because of DC v Heller.

The justices from the Trump era aren’t the originalists we hoped for, by far.

[dwhitehorne]

The justices from the Trump era aren’t the originalists we hoped for, by far.

I wonder if they do consider themselves orginalists but are so concerned about the ramifications of their rulings that they write opinions narrowly focused to square with their conscience and not make waves. David

[ViniVidivici]

I wonder if they do consider themselves orginalists but are so concerned about the ramifications of their rulings that they write opinions narrowly focused to square with their conscience and not make waves. David

If so they would be in absolute dereliction of their duty, just as they were when they allowed the stolen election to go unchallenged.

[jsbhike]

I wonder if they do consider themselves orginalists but are so concerned about the ramifications of their rulings that they write opinions narrowly focused to square with their conscience and not make waves. David

I have seen the very wordy and hyperbolic claim made(with a straight face) numerous times that John Roberts rulings(that run counter to Federalist Papers and similar) are only due to him having had interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and democrats are holding that over his head to get the bad rulings. Hilarious.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Roberts is all about the ‘sanctity’ and reputation of the court- and his acts only make it worse. Dude should have run for congress or stayed in the executive branch and told all of us what he wanted us to do from there. F his decorum.


Why is concealed carry even and argued issue? We’ve had 20+ years of it in all kinds of forms all over and it doesn’t turn into a wild set shoot out.

Guns in bars… oh let me clutch my pearls… except we have had it here in CO since the start- no constant bar shoot outs.

I am worried that Roberts will see a 5-4 and decide to make it 6-4 and write it himself- or make it 7-2 and get Kagan to write it. Expect all kids of carve outs- like bars- and the crazy idea that you can’t CCW in NYC- how are you supposed to get around and protect yourself???? Get around by private car so you can CCW? Kind of defeats the purpose.

These restrictions are like a litmus test as to whether you get it or not. Guns aren’t the problem.

Now onto Mag and Semi bans.

How is it that the Texas abortion case gets two bites at the apple, but the CA gun laws are languishing for years in the docket?