Another fantastic ruling came out today.  The court struck down a New York law that required citizens to provide a compelling reason before they could get a concealed carry permit.

So to answer Joe Biden's query as to why you need an AR-15, or a high capacity magazine ... NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/23/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-proper-cause-requirement-concealed-carry/ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/23/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-proper-cause-requirement-concealed-carry/)

Justice Thomas issued the 6-3 ruling.  The 2nd amendment is not inferior to any other amendment.  You do not need to provide a compelling to the government before you can exercise your first amendment right to express your opinion.

Of course!  (https://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)(https://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Shame on commie NY for trying to trash American values!

the law in questions and the Supreme Court decision didn't say anything about owning a gun. 

I’m sick of libs demanding that you give a justifiable reason for how you exercise your inherent rights.  I don’t need to give a reason.  It’s none of their business.

The new opinion(pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf)) was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who declared that New York’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.

“In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command,’” Thomas wrote, quoting Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (1961).

Well, dur.  Our Constitution says so.  Commies can't read.

I would argue that you don’t even need to have “ordinary self-defense needs.”  You should be able to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights without having to demonstrate any need whatsoever.

The left just can't accept it ain't none of their damn business, if they were to mind their own business things wouldn't be screwed up like they are now.

They can't accept that commies are at a dead end in America.  They pushed right to the boundary of the envelope and tried to burst it, and failed.  Ideally, these incursions would never be seen, much less tested.  People lived in fear for too long at best, are dead at worst.

The troll’n trolls are a troll’n.    Hahahahhahahhahhaa

The problem with the Law that SCOTUS slapped down was that it required a Law-Abiding Citizen to provide a "compelling" reason
  for being given a Permit to carry a gun.

Can you even imagine that some Bureaucrat would be in a position to decide if someone's reasoning was "compelling enough"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

WHY would SOME Rights in the US Constitution require "compelling" reasons and others NOT?

Aren't ALL Rights of Citizens in the Constitution EQUAL?

Might we some day need a "compelling" reason to speak? Or, to have a trial of our peers? Or, not be given unusual punishment?

Would we need a "compelling" reason to practice a Religion?

SCOTUS has now confirmed that ALL Rights are EQUAL according to the Constitution.

(https://preview.redd.it/mqywu1ftme791.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f48c049ac05db785c12ff9df1a0ef36fd1f7c309)

Why this incursion on liberty and our Constitution took 100 years to correct is flabbergasting to me.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling.

US Supreme Court Justice Scalia

[/HIGHLIGHT][/SIZE][/FONT]



That’s exactly right.  Can you imagine having to argue to a government official to get permission to go to church?


Our inherent rights are UNALIENABLE.  They are absolute.

We can always count on commies to find out where the limit is, and push it.  But the extent they can do that is likewise limited.  Thus, Americans will always keep and bear arms to some guaranteed extent.  And there is nothing commies can do to end that.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Decision
The Supreme Court held:[47] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-47)

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, 
such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate
        that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
      The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
      The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
      Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp.32–47.


    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank), 92 U. S. 542, nor
        Presser v. Illinois (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois), 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.
       United States v. Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller), 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes,
        but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e.,
       those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example,
concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that
the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts
to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional
rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm
in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts,_Jr.) and by Justices
Anthony M. Kennedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_M._Kennedy), Clarence Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas) and
Samuel A. Alito Jr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Alito_Jr.)[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-48)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling.

US Supreme Court Justice Scalia

Democrats, why do you believe a law-abiding person who meets or exceeds all legal requirements should be denied a concealed carry permit? 

Why do you believe the government has the arbitrary right to strip Americans of their rights without any trials or convictions?

Semi-automatic (aka assault) weapons have been, and are, in common use in America, and thus use of them is protected.

The next SCOTUS decision will be there must be a compelling reason to have an abortion

but abortion would still be legal a available in all the states right hooker?

yep

Democrats have no answer!

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide.

gun rights, as opposed to abortion rights, ARE in the Constitution...

I guess the SCOTUS had a very busy day today...

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed.

An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine.

Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.

Dictators throughout much of history have disarmed their populations before they began their mass killings. Examples abound beyond Mao: Hitler took guns from the Jews in November of 1938, and Kristallnacht and the Holocaust followed; and then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06/16/after-the-guns-were-removed-the-killing-fields-began/

The end result of gun bans is genocide!

[/HIGHLIGHT][/SIZE][/FONT]



Which amendment is that?  I keep forgetting.


[/HIGHLIGHT][/SIZE][/FONT]


That actually is a Constitutional right.  The 2nd amendment.  Where the constitution does not address issues (such as abortion), they leave it up to the states and the people to decide (per the 10th amendment).


It’s all perfectly logical and consistent.

Jw2 insists the government has the absolute right to strip any citizen of his rights at any time for any reason without trial!

Just like Xi and Putin do!

Democrats love Xi and Putin!