USSC says you don't have to justify a reason for owning guns

[Dan]

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!

[Dan]

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.

[chuck_curtis]

Of course! 

Shame on commie NY for trying to trash American values!

[wvit1001]

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

[Dan]

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.

[chuck_curtis]

The new opinion(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.

[Dan]

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.

[dont-blameme]

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.

[chuck_curtis]

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.

[wvit1001]

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

[WWV10MHZ]

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.

[wvit1001]