Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
70,764
50,273
113
In a dissent joined by the other liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer noted the recent spate of gun violence, listing several shootings including the massacre at the Buffalo grocery store earlier this year. Thursday’s ruling “severely burdens States’ efforts” to curb gun violence, Breyer wrote.

“The primary difference between the Court’s view and mine is that I believe the Amendment allows States to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence that I have just described,” Breyer wrote. “I fear that the Court’s interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves States without the ability to address them.”

Justice Samuel Alito pushed back in his concurrence:


“And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “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.”
Conservative justices also dismissed concerns that defenders of New York’s gun law raised about how the law restricted the carrying of firearms into sensitive places.
“It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly,” Thomas wrote.

 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,739
17,471
113
Breyer needs to re-read 2A. It says the people have the right, and the right shall not be abridged. Even the notion that states might have an overriding and compelling interest that outweighs 2A is flawed, but that's a SCOTUS ruling for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

kc78

HR MVP
Nov 25, 2002
2,303
5,754
113
44
Pensacola, FL
Breyer needs to re-read 2A. It says the people have the right, and the right shall not be abridged. Even the notion that states might have an overriding and compelling interest that outweighs 2A is flawed, but that's a SCOTUS ruling for now.
Are these people also part of a well regulated militia? Funny how Republicans always ignore that portion of the law. There is nothing well regulated or an involved militia in these cases.

And I agree with another poster. If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed then you can't realistically put restrictions anywhere. They should be allowed into courtrooms without any background check, etc... Not certain how happy the supreme court would be if people just started walking around with firearms everywhere.
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,739
17,471
113
Are these people also part of a well regulated militia? Funny how Republicans always ignore that portion of the law. There is nothing well regulated or an involved militia in these cases.

And I agree with another poster. If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed then you can't realistically put restrictions anywhere. They should be allowed into courtrooms without any background check, etc... Not certain how happy the supreme court would be if people just started walking around with firearms everywhere.
Go back and read comments I've posted about what that clause means, both well regulated, and the original definition of militia. Also, the phrasing doesn't make that phrase a requirement to own a firearm.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
 
Nov 28, 2010
79,079
32,321
113
Maryland
Breyer needs to re-read 2A. It says the people have the right, and the right shall not be abridged. Even the notion that states might have an overriding and compelling interest that outweighs 2A is flawed, but that's a SCOTUS ruling for now.
While 2A doesn't preclude any and every "infringement" - we don't let convicts in jail carry guns after all and I doubt anyone thinks that's unconstitutional - I agree with your sentiment that 10A doesn't outweigh 2A.

If you don't like 2A, repeal or revise it. With so many Americans in favor of stronger gun controls, that might even succeed.

I'd be in favor of repealing 2A. No other specific "product line" has its own constitutional protection - and most us would think it silly to suggest that toasters, or iPhones or bicycles should be written into the constitution. We let our state and federal legislatures make modern, rational decisions on all other products, in accordance with the property, commerce, speech, and general welfare provisions in our constitution. There's no good reason in the 21st century that we can't deal with guns that same way.

Instead of whining "oh no, we can't do that!" why don't we instead spend a little time thinking about how America would look without 2A. Most other advanced nations provide models. Would the Australian model look so bad? Sweden? The UK? Canada? There are lots to compare.

While few nations are as permissive as the US, plenty still allow ownership and use. Doing away with 2A only means treating guns like other products - not confiscating them.
 
Last edited:

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,614
39,328
113
Breyer needs to re-read 2A. It says the people have the right, and the right shall not be abridged. Even the notion that states might have an overriding and compelling interest that outweighs 2A is flawed, but that's a SCOTUS ruling for now.
You forgot some pretty important parts of the amendment, but the right always does.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,429
19,791
113
Go back and read comments I've posted about what that clause means, both well regulated, and the original definition of militia. Also, the phrasing doesn't make that phrase a requirement to own a firearm.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
But it is abridged and infringed. You don't have the right to own any gun nor are you able to take them anywhere.
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,614
39,328
113
While 2A doesn't preclude any and every "infringement" - we don't let convicts in jail carry guns after all and I doubt anyone thinks that's unconstitutional - I agree with your sentiment that 10A doesn't outweigh 2A.

If you don't like 2A, repeal or revise it. With so many Americans in favor of stronger gun controls, that might even succeed.

I'd be in favor of repealing 2A. No other specific "product line" has it's own constitutional protection - and most us would think it silly to suggest that toasters, or iPhones or bicycles should be written into the constitution. We let our state and federal legislatures make modern, rational decisions on all other products, in accordance with the property, commerce, speech, and general welfare provisions in our constitution. There's no good reason in the 21st century that we can't deal with guns that same way.

Instead of whining "oh no, we can't do that!" why don't we instead spend a little time thinking about how America would look without 2A. Most other advanced nations provide models. Would the Australian model look so bad? Sweden? The UK? Canada? There are lots to compare.

While few nations are as permissive as the US, plenty still allow ownership and use. Doing away with 2A only means treating guns like other products - not confiscating them.
If we had a functioning government and an educated populace this would happen.
 
Last edited:

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,739
17,471
113
While 2A doesn't preclude any and every "infringement" - we don't let convicts in jail carry guns after all and I doubt anyone thinks that's unconstitutional - I agree with your sentiment that 10A doesn't outweigh 2A.

If you don't like 2A, repeal or revise it. With so many Americans in favor of stronger gun controls, that might even succeed.

I'd be in favor of repealing 2A. No other specific "product line" has its own constitutional protection - and most us would think it silly to suggest that toasters, or iPhones or bicycles should be written into the constitution. We let our state and federal legislatures make modern, rational decisions on all other products, in accordance with the property, commerce, speech, and general welfare provisions in our constitution. There's no good reason in the 21st century that we can't deal with guns that same way.

Instead of whining "oh no, we can't do that!" why don't we instead spend a little time thinking about how America would look without 2A. Most other advanced nations provide models. Would the Australian model look so bad? Sweden? The UK? Canada? There are lots to compare.

While few nations are as permissive as the US, plenty still allow ownership and use. Doing away with 2A only means treating guns like other products - not confiscating them.
I mostly agree until we get to the product line. It's not about a product line, it's about the ability to have tools (arms) to defend yourself. Those tools change over time.

There are 2 methods to amend the Constitution. If people want to restrict 2A, they they have a remedy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,739
17,471
113
You forgot some pretty important parts of the amendment, but the right always does.
I didn't forget anything. I stated the entire operative clause. I've also explained many times the meaning of the words in the prefatory clause, backed by quotes from the founders, especially Madison. FWIW, I'm Libertarian, though I understand that's to the right of your beliefs by a wide margin.
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,614
39,328
113
I didn't forget anything. I stated the entire operative clause. I've also explained many times the meaning of the words in the prefatory clause, backed by quotes from the founders, especially Madison. FWIW, I'm Libertarian, though I understand that's to the right of your beliefs by a wide margin.
I used to believe the libertarian claim, but your posting over the last several months is anything but libertarian.

And yes, you did forget the whole "well regulated militia" part of it. No amount of "But this guy said..." is going to change those words. If, when they said "well regulated militia" they meant "individuals should own the most deadly weapons ever devised" they should have clarified that in the amendment. Instead, they just said that arms should be regulated.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,429
19,791
113
I didn't forget anything. I stated the entire operative clause. I've also explained many times the meaning of the words in the prefatory clause, backed by quotes from the founders, especially Madison. FWIW, I'm Libertarian, though I understand that's to the right of your beliefs by a wide margin.
But you won't address the fact that those rights have been infringed. And for good reason. But your argument suggests there should never be any restriction to owning weapons. Which is it - do you accept infringements or do you not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

kc78

HR MVP
Nov 25, 2002
2,303
5,754
113
44
Pensacola, FL
While 2A doesn't preclude any and every "infringement" - we don't let convicts in jail carry guns after all and I doubt anyone thinks that's unconstitutional - I agree with your sentiment that 10A doesn't outweigh 2A.

If you don't like 2A, repeal or revise it. With so many Americans in favor of stronger gun controls, that might even succeed.

I'd be in favor of repealing 2A. No other specific "product line" has its own constitutional protection - and most us would think it silly to suggest that toasters, or iPhones or bicycles should be written into the constitution. We let our state and federal legislatures make modern, rational decisions on all other products, in accordance with the property, commerce, speech, and general welfare provisions in our constitution. There's no good reason in the 21st century that we can't deal with guns that same way.

Instead of whining "oh no, we can't do that!" why don't we instead spend a little time thinking about how America would look without 2A. Most other advanced nations provide models. Would the Australian model look so bad? Sweden? The UK? Canada? There are lots to compare.

While few nations are as permissive as the US, plenty still allow ownership and use. Doing away with 2A only means treating guns like other products - not confiscating them.
It's virtually impossible to amend the constitution in today's political world, and repealing the 2nd amendment (As much as I'd like to see it done) isn't going to happen in the next 20 years or more. And when you consider that the constitution treats states equally in the amendment process regardless of population, then getting 2/3 of them to agree to repeal the amendment isn't going to happen. If it only required 2/3 of the population I think it might happen one day, but when Rhode Island's vote is just as equal to California's vote and with so many small population Republican states, it's just not going to happen.

Republicans have a much better chance of getting amendments through than Democrats due to the state advantage (The same reason why Democrats controlling the Senate is really difficult, even if there are many more Democratic voters).
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,739
17,471
113
I used to believe the libertarian claim, but your posting over the last several months is anything but libertarian.

And yes, you did forget the whole "well regulated militia" part of it. No amount of "But this guy said..." is going to change those words. If, when they said "well regulated militia" they meant "individuals should own the most deadly weapons ever devised" they should have clarified that in the amendment. Instead, they just said that arms should be regulated.
Really? What post isn't libertarian? Do you even know what libertarian is?

When you actually accept the meaning of what the founders wrote we can have a discussion. Until then we're talking about your interpretation, which means nothing.

I'll wager you haven't even read this opinion, or Heller, or any of the opinions where 14A incorporated a right.

"The people" have the right to keep and bear arms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
We got rid of those in 1865.
While that’s a little of an overstatement, it’s also absolutely an important and often overlooked point that constitutional history also occurred in the 1860s. Which of course is why part of the courts analysis yesterday focused on pre/post bellum history.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
Are these people also part of a well regulated militia? Funny how Republicans always ignore that portion of the law. There is nothing well regulated or an involved militia in these cases.

And I agree with another poster. If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed then you can't realistically put restrictions anywhere. They should be allowed into courtrooms without any background check, etc... Not certain how happy the supreme court would be if people just started walking around with firearms everywhere.
The militia issue was addressed quite specifically in heller. As to the infringement issue, original meaning clearly understood there to be permissible infringements including sensitive places. Again, as noted in heller and again yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,429
19,791
113
Really? What post isn't libertarian? Do you even know what libertarian is?

When you actually accept the meaning of what the founders wrote we can have a discussion. Until then we're talking about your interpretation, which means nothing.

I'll wager you haven't even read this opinion, or Heller, or any of the opinions where 14A incorporated a right.

"The people" have the right to keep and bear arms.
Any arms? No restrictions on where they can have them? If not, why not?
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,429
19,791
113
The militia issue was addressed quite specifically in heller. As to the infringement issue, original meaning clearly understood there to be permissible infringements including sensitive places. Again, as noted in heller and again yesterday.
How do you get your "original meaning" conclusion?
 

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
43,509
47,961
113
Are we worried about "assault rifles" or handguns, now?
We’re worried about idiots who have no business carrying guns, carrying guns. Because that’s going to get worse, leading to more dead Americans that Republicans don’t care about since they were birthed.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
How do you get your "original meaning" conclusion?
addressed, again in detail in heller. Read the opinion. Disagree if you like. in the relevant historical period, there were clearly understood and accepted limits on the right to keep and bear, such as limits on sensitive places (no guns before the king).
 

BioHawk

HR Legend
Sep 21, 2005
38,614
39,328
113
Really? What post isn't libertarian? Do you even know what libertarian is?

When you actually accept the meaning of what the founders wrote we can have a discussion. Until then we're talking about your interpretation, which means nothing.

I'll wager you haven't even read this opinion, or Heller, or any of the opinions where 14A incorporated a right.

"The people" have the right to keep and bear arms.
I'm not going to waste time going back through your voting history to find something as petty as your pro-fascist posts you've made, how about I just let you know when you make them in the future?

And the founding fathers didn't know shit about how America should be run in the 21st century. Hell, the Constitution, as written, didn't work very well for the 18th century. That's why they intended for it to be modified over time and that's why it's had to be changed so much. We stopped doing that and the country is about to fall apart because of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ft254

kc78

HR MVP
Nov 25, 2002
2,303
5,754
113
44
Pensacola, FL
Heller addresses it by not addressing it at all and simply saying it has no bearing at all. So fine, the court addressed it, but as usual, they've re-interpreted the constitution in whatever manner they want it to be seen. I do disagree with their reading. To me it's an extreme reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
34,429
19,791
113
addressed, again in detail in heller. Read the opinion. Disagree if you like. in the relevant historical period, there were clearly understood and accepted limits on the right to keep and bear, such as limits on sensitive places (no guns before the king).
So there's nothing on the actual Constitution about "original meaning" - just an opinion on it some 200 years later. Got it. :rolleyes: