Supreme Court Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.

JDL

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
1,821
Likes
1,397
Location
Wilbraham, MA
NY could just pass a law banning all guns that hold over 6 rounds. This will fulfill that the state is not taking away your rights because you can still purchase a gun and carry. This will open the door for the state to close down all semi auto firearms pistols or rifle. This could end up being a plus for the gun grabbing NY liberals.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
3,872
Likes
1,440
How does this affect those with a LTC with restrictions? Technically they have a License to “carry” but still can’t legally carry.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,364
Likes
5,599
Location
Stoughton
Magazine restrictions are on the block now. Since strict scrutiny will now apply to all gun laws, the state must prove that guns that can carry more than six rounds were not in common use through most of the history of the nation. Before today gun laws were examined under the lower standard of "intermediate scrutiny" and it was easier for the states to claim that it was a matter of a compelling state interest to limit magazine capacity.

I expect that any pending magazine capacity laws will be overturned by lower courts now that SCOTUS has changed the standard. It might take a while, but I think it will happen.

NY could just pass a law banning all guns that hold over 6 rounds. This will fulfill that the state is not taking away your rights because you can still purchase a gun and carry. This will open the door for the state to close down all semi auto firearms pistols or rifle. This could end up being a plus for the gun grabbing NY liberals.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
23,434
Likes
39,502
Location
MA
Double dupe, though. I'm surprised there hasn't been five or six more, given how important the news is.
How does this affect those with a LTC with restrictions? Technically they have a License to “carry” but still can’t legally carry.
Been asked a bunch of times already in the main thread. Short answer: nobody knows for sure. Long answer: the restrictions should be going away, if the ruling means what we think it does and supposing MA follows it.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,368
Likes
12,984
Location
People's Republik
Double dupe, though. I'm surprised there hasn't been five or six more, given how important the news is.

Been asked a bunch of times already in the main thread. Short answer: nobody knows for sure. Long answer: the restrictions should be going away, if the ruling means what we think it does and supposing MA follows it.
It would be great if someone would roll them together.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
NY could just pass a law banning all guns that hold over 6 rounds. This will fulfill that the state is not taking away your rights because you can still purchase a gun and carry. This will open the door for the state to close down all semi auto firearms pistols or rifle. This could end up being a plus for the gun grabbing NY liberals.

Read the opinion. No states can’t do those things and comply with this decision.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,629
How does this affect those with a LTC with restrictions? Technically they have a License to “carry” but still can’t legally carry.

This ruling directly affects NY, other states will have their laws challenged now. It means arbitrary may issue laws end.
 

MGnoob

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
6,851
Likes
5,746
Shall issue versus the current “ Red flag /boyfriend loophole “ Gun control nonsense is very telling. It’s almost like they knew they were going to lose had to come up with another “test” determine your suitability to have have “rights”…

It’s just more political theater but at least it’s going in the right direction. Watch all the violence happened when they rule on abortion.

We’re going to see all the violent wackos come out with their self justified excuses to burn shit down.

The joke being is all the CVS and wallgreens are going to get robbed of other drugs. You know the people who actually provide you the drugs for abortions?
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,368
Likes
12,984
Location
People's Republik
It's late and I'm tired. What does "ends-means" mean?
Sorry, the term seems to be means-end. That is "the end justifies the means." It refers to all of the tap dancing around to excuse rights violations based on some perceived societal responsibility, e.g., to reduce "gun violence."
 

JDL

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
1,821
Likes
1,397
Location
Wilbraham, MA
NY dosent care they already don't comply. There is a new laws pushing to declare almost every where in NYC to be a gun free zone making it near impossible to get around the city without being criminal. And the DA's will proacute these new fellons and still let the real criminal back out to the street.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,364
Likes
5,599
Location
Stoughton
The decision specifically addressed this. "Sensitive areas" must be narrowly defined, not a blanket statement.

The decision is long and detailed, but it's worth reading in its entirety. Justice Thomas has put a lot of thought into this and I wouldn't be surprised if some parts of it were written years ago in anticipation of the day when he could use them.

NY dosent care they already don't comply. There is a new laws pushing to declare almost every where in NYC to be a gun free zone making it near impossible to get around the city without being criminal. And the DA's will proacute these new fellons and still let the real criminal back out to the street.
 

67ray

NES Member
Rating - 100%
267   0   0
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,434
Likes
4,269
It means the balancing of competing interests - in this case asking "Does the benefit of unimportant people being armed outweigh the risk?" rather than "Does 2A allow unimportant people to be armed?".

More specifically, and diplomatically, "Does the risk of universal concealed carry justify limitations on the right to carry?" And Thomas says "that test doesn't apply to the Second Amendment (and others BTW)". So the answer doesn't even matter. It's not a viable test.

This statement has huge implications. Going forward no Court can use this test at any level. I think it is a bigger decision than the smackdown itself.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,690
Likes
2,193
This statement has huge implications. Going forward no Court can use this test at any level. I think it is a bigger decision than the smackdown itself.
How about going backwards? Could cases already heard by lower courts be reheard because they used 2 tests instead of just 1?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,921
Likes
24,567

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,820
Likes
70,543
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom