Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
What's this, what's this???!!! A bit of sanity? Can we now dispense of the CMS mandate, please??! Why do I have the feeling that we're being set up for something really stupid?
Wow! So this means I don't have to renew my concealed carry permit? I can actually exercise my 2nd Amendment rights with "permission" of the State of California?
Judge Alito excoriates the dissenting opinion in his defense of the decision; see page 70. And if you read the first few paragraphs of the dissenting opinion, page 84 onwards, you'll see what he's talking about. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Reading the opinion, i feel like it reflects much of what we're seeing in society today, moral foundations vs how the wind is blowing today. A fundamental right to free speech vs protecting only those who share your opinion. Sex based on mobile or stationary gametes vs how i feel. Truth vs my truth.
No one should fear lawful US citizens exercising their second amendment rights. It should be celebrated. Lawful US citizen won’t use the second amendment rights to self DEFENSE to commit murder, which is an illegal OFFENSIVE action.
Great news for people living in those god forsaken states that have taken gun rights away from their citizens....illegally of course. How do people get back their lives once attacked, maimed and or killed by criminals in one of those cities? Hmmm?
Gun control supporters should take comfort. Licensed gun owners commit less than 1% of all crimes with a firearm. More than 99% of all crimes with firearms are committed by UNLICENSED gun owners. Go after the unlicensed gun owners. Leave licensed gun owners alone in peace and safety.
"Gun rights." The government cannot 'give' you the right to carry a gun, they can only attempt to take that 'right' away! Like in China, or Russia, or Iran, or Britain, all of Europe, everywhere!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
In the interest of furthering the debate, I am going through the actual decision now.
I am through about page 17 of the whole document, about 10 pages into the opinion proper.
On page 17 of the document, I find the very troubling words, "The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” Id., at 599 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Can anybody find the troubling phrase? It is this: "...we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Does anybody see the problem?
This is wrong, because in the line just before this, they say that, "...Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
They are contradicting themselves. Either the right is pre-existing, or it is not. I happen to think that the right is pre-existing, because that's what the Cruikshank decision said.
I bow to nobody in my general admiration for Justice Thomas, but here he had a chance to clear up this apparent discrepancy, and he didn't.
I'll read through the rest, but this is very troubling, along with the other stuff in the original Heller decision which perpetuated the myth that States had broad police powers to regulate the right. This is a back door to all kinds of mischief.
What's this, what's this???!!! A bit of sanity? Can we now dispense of the CMS mandate, please??! Why do I have the feeling that we're being set up for something really stupid?
Wow! So this means I don't have to renew my concealed carry permit? I can actually exercise my 2nd Amendment rights with "permission" of the State of California?
Judge Alito excoriates the dissenting opinion in his defense of the decision; see page 70. And if you read the first few paragraphs of the dissenting opinion, page 84 onwards, you'll see what he's talking about. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Reading the opinion, i feel like it reflects much of what we're seeing in society today, moral foundations vs how the wind is blowing today. A fundamental right to free speech vs protecting only those who share your opinion. Sex based on mobile or stationary gametes vs how i feel. Truth vs my truth.
Civility is the object of the exercise. Entering the public commons in good faith committed to civility is what matters most.
The risks arise from people who don't do that; the uncivil members of our society.
No one should fear lawful US citizens exercising their second amendment rights. It should be celebrated. Lawful US citizen won’t use the second amendment rights to self DEFENSE to commit murder, which is an illegal OFFENSIVE action.
Great news for people living in those god forsaken states that have taken gun rights away from their citizens....illegally of course. How do people get back their lives once attacked, maimed and or killed by criminals in one of those cities? Hmmm?
Great news!
The Supreme Court's conservative extremists remain hellbent on killing Americans by lying about the words and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Good decision!
Flashback: Joe Biden Caught Running Secret Lists Used to Prevent Outspoken Political Opponents from Owning Guns
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/flashback-joe-biden-caught-running-secret-lists-used-prevent-outspoken-political-opponents-owning-guns/
You know the old saying: “God created man. Sam Colt made them equal.”
Way to go Supremes!!!!
Gun control supporters should take comfort. Licensed gun owners commit less than 1% of all crimes with a firearm. More than 99% of all crimes with firearms are committed by UNLICENSED gun owners. Go after the unlicensed gun owners. Leave licensed gun owners alone in peace and safety.
Finally some sanity. How about some sanity re: the 2020 election. Just my opinion.
“In a major expansion of gun rights"
What a laugh! Talk about an incorrect statement!
"Gun rights." The government cannot 'give' you the right to carry a gun, they can only attempt to take that 'right' away! Like in China, or Russia, or Iran, or Britain, all of Europe, everywhere!
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
No lets get police in our schools. The counter argument is weak, this needs to happen. You don't see mass shootings at police departments
How about the “novel “ idea that the shooters are not licensed gun holders either within the States or at the border with the cartels!!!
Feel free to ponder this one awhile .
In the interest of furthering the debate, I am going through the actual decision now.
I am through about page 17 of the whole document, about 10 pages into the opinion proper.
On page 17 of the document, I find the very troubling words, "The Amendment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” Id., at 599 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Can anybody find the troubling phrase? It is this: "...we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."
Does anybody see the problem?
This is wrong, because in the line just before this, they say that, "...Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
They are contradicting themselves. Either the right is pre-existing, or it is not. I happen to think that the right is pre-existing, because that's what the Cruikshank decision said.
I bow to nobody in my general admiration for Justice Thomas, but here he had a chance to clear up this apparent discrepancy, and he didn't.
I'll read through the rest, but this is very troubling, along with the other stuff in the original Heller decision which perpetuated the myth that States had broad police powers to regulate the right. This is a back door to all kinds of mischief.