Supreme Court shoots down NY rule that set high bar for concealed handgun licenses

[RED333]

19 minutes ago, Defender said:

..or without glasses on my phone, lol.  I haven't consumed anything stronger than coffee or cola in many years, but I should put on my reading glasses before trying to type.  

 

I am in the same boat!

[-boatman-]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/2nd-amendment-bruen-new-york-gun-case-supreme-court-decision-kirkland-and-ellis-rule-of-law-constitution-11656017031

Lawyers who took this to the supreme court told to drop clients or leave firm. 

[Grayfox54]

I couldn't read the entire article because I'm not a member. But from what I saw, it looks like the lawyers quit the firm. Correct? Good for them. I'm sure they will be quite successful with pro-2nd clients. 

[Hozzie]

This may be the two most significant days in our lifetimes as it relates to the constitution.    I am not making a statement on today specifically, but it’s great to see a true constitutionalist court.  
 

 

[Omega]

13 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

This may be the two most significant days in our lifetimes as it relates to the constitution.    I am not making a statement on today specifically, but it’s great to see a true constitutionalist court.  
 

 

I'll say it.  A win for States Rights, where it belonged in the first place.

[Erik88]

3 minutes ago, Omega said:

I'll say it.  A win for States Rights, where it belonged in the first place.

Technically the first ruling is not a win for states rights but it's a win for freedom and the right call. 

[Omega]

1 minute ago, Erik88 said:

Technically the first ruling is not a win for states rights but it's a win for freedom and the right call. 

You're right, but I was speaking of today's ruling.

[-boatman-]

5 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

I couldn't read the entire article because I'm not a member. But from what I saw, it looks like the lawyers quit the firm. Correct? Good for them. I'm sure they will be quite successful with pro-2nd clients. 

https://thegunfeed.com/

There is a link on this page that will take you to a archived page that shows the whole article.

[deerslayer]

On 6/23/2022 at 1:03 PM, Whisper said:

Take a look at CNN.  They are moaning, wailing, rending their garments and predicting the end of the world.  Absolutely hilarious.

Cheers,

Whisper

After the last two days, Democrats haven’t been this upset since someone freed their slaves.  

[Garufa]

16 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

After the last two days, Democrats haven’t been this upset since someone freed their slaves.  

I wouldn’t gloat too much.  I have a feeling things are going to get really ugly very, very soon.  

[lansa_coder]

If the opinion compared the right to carry with free speech, how would gun free zones be constitutional?

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, lansa_coder said:

If the opinion compared the right to carry with free speech, how would gun free zones be constitutional?

Ever heard of “free speech zones” where demonstrators are herded into designated areas far away from the event to exercise  their free speech?  I recall it being implemented and commonplace at federal and local levels somewhere between 2000-2008.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Garufa

[Hozzie]

I have been meaning to build a set of cornhole boards for a while.  I have buddies coming over to shoot tomorrow so in the spirit I did this.  Just need a couple of coats of poly on it.

[Garufa]

27 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

I have been meaning to build a set of cornhole boards for a while.  I have buddies coming over to shoot tomorrow so in the spirit I did this.  Just need a couple of coats of poly on it.

I got a shotgun that will put bigger holes in those boards if you need some help.  

[Defender]

11 hours ago, -boatman- said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/2nd-amendment-bruen-new-york-gun-case-supreme-court-decision-kirkland-and-ellis-rule-of-law-constitution-11656017031

Lawyers who took this to the supreme court told to drop clients or leave firm. 

Wow!

[deerslayer]

3 hours ago, Garufa said:

I wouldn’t gloat too much.  I have a feeling things are going to get really ugly very, very soon.  

Going to?  More like been. 

Edited June 25, 2022 by deerslayer

[JayC]

On 6/24/2022 at 7:34 PM, Garufa said:

Ever heard of “free speech zones” where demonstrators are herded into designated areas far away from the event to exercise  their free speech?  I recall it being implemented and commonplace at federal and local levels somewhere between 2000-2008.

And they have never been challenged before SCOTUS.  They are blatantly unconstitutional and every city/state that has sued over them settles by writing a check. 

Somebody with a very large check book has to file suit, and stick with it to get things like this ruling to become the law of the land.  And you'll note this was a STATE level group (helped by the GOA), you know who you NEVER see helping back one of these lawsuits?  The NRA - and yes the NRA filed a brief AFTER SCOTUS took the case so they could claim this was an NRA victory.

For crying out loud John Cornyn is still listed on the NRA website with an A+ rating - https://www.nrapvf.org/campaigns/2014/vote-cornyn/ 

[Jeb48]

[Garufa]

9 minutes ago, Jeb48 said:

Forthwith, lol.

[m16ty]

On 6/23/2022 at 3:28 PM, E4 No More said:

If I were to meet Keith on the streets I'd kick him square in the nuts...if he has any. He really doesn't want to challenge the SC's authority.

Well he’s not wrong. NY could ignore the ruling and there isn’t really much the SC could do about it, especially with a Biden justice department.

[Hozzie]

21 minutes ago, m16ty said:

Well he’s not wrong. NY could ignore the ruling and there isn’t really much the SC could do about it, especially with a Biden justice department.

New York doesn't need to ignore anything.  The SC did not rule that Abortion is illegal so there is nothing for NY to ignore.  This is the problem.  Too many of these ignorant people don't know basic civics.

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, m16ty said:

Well he’s not wrong. NY could ignore the ruling and there isn’t really much the SC could do about it, especially with a Biden justice department.

Any judge can hold someone in contempt of court for just about any reason. It violates the 1st, (IMHO), and they do not need the justice department to enforce it. If the FBI refused they could also be held in contempt. I don't think anyone wants to test that with the SC.

[m16ty]

On 6/27/2022 at 8:15 AM, E4 No More said:

Any judge can hold someone in contempt of court for just about any reason. It violates the 1st, (IMHO), and they do not need the justice department to enforce it. If the FBI refused they could also be held in contempt. I don't think anyone wants to test that with the SC.

At the end of the day though, if the Biden Justice Department doesn't want to prosecute, contempt of court doesn't mean much. If NY ignores the ruling, do you really think the Biden Justice Department would go after them? Even if the FBI was held in contempt, there is nobody to arrest them. 

[m16ty]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:59 AM, Hozzie said:

New York doesn't need to ignore anything.  The SC did not rule that Abortion is illegal so there is nothing for NY to ignore.  This is the problem.  Too many of these ignorant people don't know basic civics.

This thread isn't about the abortion ruling.

[E4 No More]

10 hours ago, m16ty said:

At the end of the day though, if the Biden Justice Department doesn't want to prosecute, contempt of court doesn't mean much. If NY ignores the ruling, do you really think the Biden Justice Department would go after them? Even if the FBI was held in contempt, there is nobody to arrest them. 

The Justice Department doesn't prosecute contempt of court charges; the judge does.