If SCOTUS is ruling on NYSPA v Bruen it’ll happen this Tuesday or Thursday.

[TomMcC]

The words of Justice Alito concerning all the spurious arguments of the dissenters. In a nutshell, all the misuse of guns is irrelevant to the argument that the 2nd protects a persons right to use a gun outside the home for self defense without a government approved reason. Utilitarianism takes one in the jaw.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-case-n2609218

[Bodhisattva05X]

I read this on another forum, and figured those here, much smarter than I could weigh in on this.

People are focusing on the wrong part of this ruling. It's actually huge.

• ⁠Syllabus:... Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.... The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense.

Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context

This is DC v Heller levels or big. This explicitly changes how all 2A cases are to be heard and ruled. You can no longer say "Might save lives, so therefore public interest". Which is how every feature and magazine ban has been upheld.

This is above and beyond "strict scrutiny". This is an absolute bombshell that everyone is missing because they're too focused on the Permits.

Every California law out of the 9th circuit has been upheld on that two-step process. This ruling is SCOTUS explicitly backhanding that down into the trash and saying "No. That's not the standard we told you to use. Cut that shit out." in no uncertain terms.

Practically three things just happened.

Three things:

1. ⁠Basically all your magazine bans, your assault weapon bans, your registries, are going to get reheard under the new directive and most likely struck down because they cannot survive without means-end scrutiny.

• ⁠They are not explicitly struck down by this, but they are going to be extremely hard pressed to withstand the new standard.

1. ⁠All "May Issue" permitting is done, it now must be "Shall issue".
2. ⁠States cannot declare large swathes of areas to be "sensitive areas" and prohibit carrying. They have to shot a historical and traditional pattern of restriction, at the national level.

• ⁠So saying no guns in the legislature, courthouse, polling places, banks is fine. But explicitly called out what that NY cannot declare Manhattan Island a "Sensitive area".

[BangBang77]

Yesterday was a good day. Now let's hope they overturn Roe today.

The weekend meltdown should be epic. I love liberal tears.

[Krazykarl]

I spent some time yesterday reviewing the 14th amendment as Thomas spent a large portion of his opinion on its application. I was moved by the implications that the 14th amendment is actually a stronger proponent of gun rights than the second. Individual rights. Personal liberty.

Additionally, magazine bans are now illegal as Thomas describes common use handguns for personal protection.

[Straight Shooter]

Yesterday was a good day. Now let's hope they overturn Roe today.

The weekend meltdown should be epic. I love liberal tears.

Oh, the weeping, moaning and gnashing of teeth is far from done. Like I said yesterday, after the rulings come, if you wanna see some high comedy, go to Huffpoo and the other libtard sites.
They absolutely lose their shit- but not only that, they get so mad that they expose their TRUE faces, like that wackjob Olberman, who went insane calling for no one to obey the ruling, and to eliminate the Court, blah. blah. blah. You know..REAL treason & insurrection

[Entryteam]

Oh, the weeping, moaning and gnashing of teeth is far from done. Like I said yesterday, after the rulings come, if you wanna see some high comedy, go to Huffpoo and the other libtard sites.
They absolutely lose their shit- but not only that, they get so mad that they expose their TRUE faces, like that wackjob Olberman, who went insane calling for no one to obey the ruling, and to eliminate the Court, blah. blah. blah. You know..REAL treason & insurrection

Well, they did it. And now, let the games begin.

[BoringGuy45]

With Roe gone, there WILL be blood. I think the riots of 2020 will be child's play compared to this summer. I would not be surprised to see targeted killings of pro-life individuals. They may very well actually start a war over this. Abortion is their religion; to question it is the same as drawing a picture of Mohammad to Islamic extremists.

[utahjeepr]

Well, they did it. And now, let the games begin.

Yup, I predict interesting times ahead. Queue "Summer of Love" 2022.

[Diamondback]

Yup, I predict interesting times ahead. Queue "Summer of Love" 2022.

Perfect excuse to monkey with the election because of "civil disturbance."

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I don’t take any outsized glee from the left losing it over these decisions - i have less than proper glee- just a bit. A smirk and a smart arsed comment.

Remember, outside of the fact these decisions are rational, logical, and moral- if Trump loses in 2016, most of us here would either be dead, covered in other people’s blood in a pile of brass, in jail, or fondly remembering our ARs that we had once.

If Obama had decided that he actually wanted Garland on the court, versus having the issue of GOP obstruction for the 2016 election, and had pushed harder for confirmation hearings, you know Mittens and Kittens and the Alaska-ho would have voted for it- we would have a ‘soft’ 5-4, and Roberts would have pushed for a 15 week compromise.

We have rights. Robes don’t give you divine power- hell adding a Holy-baller hat like the Pope still doesn’t do it. There was never a ‘right’ to abort a baby- especially after 15 weeks- the common limit in the EU. But the left pushed too hard- they in CO and NYS, pushed for 40weeks(Full term) abortions.

My point? None really. But if for a couple of close calls, we’d be in a totally different legal landscape….

I do agree that rationale for the ruling is more important than the case. We just need a quick case to cement that. Maryland or CA mag case seem the most likely….