• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#248]Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

ttwtt78640 said:
He ignores the fact that the 2A text clearly exists within the Constitution while the right to abortion on demand (yet only until ‘viability’?) text clearly does not.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have looked through the constitution many times to find the word abortion and came up empty. So not sure how a person who was not pushing an agenda would try and make the claim that katyal and others are pushing.

Don’t get me wrong I think anyone who wants an abortion within reason should be able to get one but claiming you have a constitutional right to one is just dishonest.
 
Binary_Digit said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...
None of which says you have a constitutional right to an abortion.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Help me understand in what way(s) it's more broad than what I posted? It looks like this also touches on legal ways to define a "gun free zone", is that what you're getting at?
Click to expand...
What the majority opinion recognizes for the first time is that the people have the right to bear arms in public and the presence of law enforcement is not a substitute for that individual right. May-issue laws throughout the country are now deceased. And, yes, the establishment of gun free zones in public places is now subject to strict scrutiny.
 
braindrain said:
None of which says you have a constitutional right to an abortion.
Click to expand...
I take it to mean that rights are implied unless overridden by a Constitutionally-just law (passed by the entity which has that Constitutional authority), which means there is an implicit right to abortion at the federal level.
 
Napoleon said:
Piffle. There was some contentious back and forth between Alito and Breyer in the concurrences and dissent. With Breyer boo-hooing about the lack of consideration for mass shootings and Alito hilariously mic-dropping him away by saying in his concurrence:

“Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? 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.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?”
Click to expand...

Alito is a troll that doesn't care if a hundred schools get shot up every year.
 
VanceMack said:

"Supreme Court ruling "expands the Second Amendment right," CNN legal analyst says"​


We'll ignore the fact that the person that made that claim is the same person that jerked off on camera in front of his peers...and focus on the lunacy of that statement.

THIS is the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear that the SCOTUS did not expand rights...it restored rights previously violated.
Click to expand...
Nothing well regulated in this ruling
 
Next time there is a “riot” at the Capitol, guess what, there will be more than flagpoles and fire extinguishers.


Supreme Court giveth, while the Senate takes away. It’s all a shell game!
 
SCrider said:
Nothing well regulated in this ruling
Click to expand...
Congress and the States are now. Requiring that the people provide the government with a reason subject to a process of approval in order to exercise a Constitutional right completely defeats the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
 
Rexedgar said:
Next time there is a “riot” at the Capitol, guess what, there will be more than flagpoles and fire extinguishers.


Supreme Court giveth, while the Senate takes away. It’s all a shell game!
Click to expand...
The Red Hat Thugs already had a huge cache of weapons and ammo stashed just across the Potomac River in case things went hot. Reducing the concealed carry limits doesn't seem like something that would affect people like that. And I'm sure the Capitol and other gov't buildings can still be designated "gun free" without any challenges.
 
This is all we need in NYC and the country. Tens of thousands of unwanted babies who when they grow up can carry guns around with them wherever they want. Between these two decisions, the GOP has shot itself in the foot (pun intended) to the extent gun crime continues to rise. Any angle they had to blame that on Dem policy just went out the window.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That was my understanding too. It clears the decks for Trump's insurrectionist hillbilly militias to try again! Let mayhem ensue.
Click to expand...
So laws on carrying concealed guns is the reason nobody who tried to "overthrow the government" on the January 6th had a gun... I was wondering why their efforts failed.

<sarcasm off>

.
 
Napoleon said:
Piffle. There was some contentious back and forth between Alito and Breyer in the concurrences and dissent. With Breyer boo-hooing about the lack of consideration for mass shootings and Alito hilariously mic-dropping him away by saying in his concurrence:

“Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? 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.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?”
Click to expand...
I actually think Breyer mic-dropped in responding the above quote in his dissent. Not sure if you read that part....

My favorite part of Alito's opinion is where he cites all the guns NYPD has taken off the streets -- ignoring that in many cases those guns were recovered based on violations of restrictions on who can carry them in public like the law he just struck down.

Alito and the others don't want to consider modern circumstances and interests because they know if they do the answer is clear. So instead they change the standard so they only have to consider the circumstances from 300 years ago, when any random person had like a 20% chance of being murdered by a native american or bear when they went out to lunch and police were a two hour donkey ride away.
 
Last edited:
Loulit01 said:
The Supreme Court moments ago struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home.

It's the first major Second Amendment opinion in more than a decade: In 2008, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense.

After the ruling, however, to the frustration of gun rights advocates, lower courts relied upon language in the opinion to uphold many gun regulations.

www.cnn.com

Live updates: Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home. Follow here for live news updates, reactions and analysis.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't have an abortion, but here's a 9mm consolation prize.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is giving Democrats lots of ammunition (pun intended) for the upcoming elections.

Abortions and guns are major issues and the SC is going all in alt-right on these issues. When are the Republican and Independent women going to have enough and begin to protect their rights and families. (I've pretty much given up on Republican men.)
 
Napoleon said:
Congress and the States are now. Requiring that the people provide the government with a reason subject to a process of approval in order to exercise a Constitutional right completely defeats the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Imagine having to explain to the government why you deserve a speedy trial or why you don't deserve cruel and unusual punishment lol.
 
Binary_Digit said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Yep, but who, exactly, gets to define the existence of those completely textless (aka non-enumerated) rights?

If you say a majority of our current nine robed umpires then we agree, yet if you say that once the SCOTUS issues a majority opinion on a matter then the matter is (forever?) settled law then we have legalized ‘separate but equal’ racial discrimination in our public schools forever.
 
VanceMack said:

"Supreme Court ruling "expands the Second Amendment right," CNN legal analyst says"​


We'll ignore the fact that the person that made that claim is the same person that jerked off on camera in front of his peers...and focus on the lunacy of that statement.

THIS is the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear that the SCOTUS did not expand rights...it restored rights previously violated.
Click to expand...
That's how I understand it.
In the ruling there is one sentence that sums it up. "Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution".


The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Today was a great win toward the restoration of the Constitution.

Boomchickawawa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
He ignores the fact that the 2A text clearly exists within the Constitution while the right to abortion on demand (yet only until ‘viability’?) text clearly does not.
Click to expand...
Right to privacy, right to defend yourself
It's all there. Either you are a hypocrite or you realize they have made scotus political even more now..
 
braindrain said:
Exactly. I have looked through the constitution many times to find the word abortion and came up empty. So not sure how a person who was not pushing an agenda would try and make the claim that katyal and others are pushing.

Don’t get me wrong I think anyone who wants an abortion within reason should be able to get one but claiming you have a constitutional right to one is just dishonest.
Click to expand...
Yes that's a lazy argument..
 
Loulit01 said:
The Supreme Court moments ago struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home.

It's the first major Second Amendment opinion in more than a decade: In 2008, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense.

After the ruling, however, to the frustration of gun rights advocates, lower courts relied upon language in the opinion to uphold many gun regulations.

www.cnn.com

Live updates: Supreme Court strikes down New York's handgun law

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home. Follow here for live news updates, reactions and analysis.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't have an abortion, but here's a 9mm consolation prize.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how far we've diverged from original intent. Originally, the second amendment was supposed to be a limit just on the federal government, so that they couldn't restrict bearing the arms that would be necessary if the individual states were going to be relying on well-regulated militias for their defense, in the absence of any standing national military.

These days, though, it's treated as having nothing to do with defense of the states, and it's interpreted as actually preventing the states from regulating militias (by, say, monitoring who has which weapons, which is a pretty basic thing you'd want to known when administering a well-regulated militia).

Right-wingers on the high court are the ultimate activist judges, legislating from the bench by way of pulling new legal ideas out of thin air. They eagerly tread on state rights and stare decisis and the tenth amendment, while wading into political questions in order to substitute their own wisdom for that of anyone actually accountable to the people in an election.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom