SCOTUS rules on New York Licensing

[sidearm1]

Waiting for more details, but the SCOTUS has ruled that New York's "proper cause" licensing of carry permits is unconstitutional.  It ruled that Shall Issue permits are OK as long as it protects the rights of the individual.

[Phantom]

Waiting for more details, but the SCOTUS has ruled that New York's "proper cause" licensing of carry permits is unconstitutional.  It ruled that Shall Issue permits are OK as long as it protects the rights of the individual.

From what I've heard those details might end up more interesting and more far reaching them we think.

A big part being how courts are to interpret and applied related laws from now. (Not sure about older already resolved cases.)

Basically the right to keep and bare arms is older then the 2Nd amendment.
And the 2Nd amendment exists mainly to keep the government from infringing on those rights. 

It will be interesting to watch ......I'm not saying they won't still try BUT.... could be real interesting!

 


 

[shooter]

 Have to wait and see where this goes. im hearing stuff all over the map on what its gonna effect,

[Phantom]

Have to wait and see where this goes. im hearing stuff all over the map on what its gonna effect,

One of the more interesting ones i heard is that RED flag laws might (Might) be unconstitutional.

[GreyGeek]

Say you have a fight with a relative, or your wife or girl friend and they, out of spite, report you as owning firearms and being psychology unstable.    You HAVE NOT committed a crime, but a LEO shows up and using the Red Flag Law confiscates all of your firearms.  The RFL's do not allow you to know who has accused you.  They do not allow you to know on what basis you are being accused of being a danger.

Your Constitutional rights, on the other hand, are being denied wholesale.
4th Amendment - "...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."

6th Amendment -  Not having been accused of a crime your home is searched and your property removed without a warrant, or even with one.  So, you can't face your accuser and cross examine them in a court of law.  Since there is no trial, speedy or otherwise,  you can't present witnesses in your favor to counter arguments made by your accuser.  Further, there is no limit to how long your property will be withheld from you.

8th Amendment - "... cruel or unusual punishment..."  You have property taken from you for being accused of being a threat to the community, without any proof being presented, or the names of your accusers being given.  You are not given a speedy trial to cross examine your accusers.  You have no recourse.

Cruel, unusual, and unconstitutional.  Red Flag Laws fly in the face of the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence.    It is simply just another unconstitutional infringement.

If you could learn the name of the person who triggered the RFL against you, you would sue them for defamation of character.

And HOW do I know that the Red Flag Laws are unconstitutional?   
Because on May 17, 2021 the SCOTUS ruled that they were unconstitutional, in Caniglia vs Strom:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-157
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/caniglia-v-strom/

Holding: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady v. Dombrowski justifies the removal of Edward Caniglia’s firearms from his home by police officers under a “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 17, 2021. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed concurring opinions.

[m morton]

well the Supreme court took a down right **** on 50 years of  Roe verse wade. and ole Clarence T wants to take a crap on a few more things. looked at the cameras and said so... so counting on the Supreme court justices for anything just and correct is at the least a coin toss ...

so follow this Willie Wonka tale
 
 if congress does not **** down the throats of the Supreme court justices that down right lied to congress during the confirmation hearings and impeach / fire them. we will never have a fair Court.  and how much better/worse will the Supreme court get if they fired 2-3 justices and Sleepy Joe B. gets to pick them .. can you wave goodbye to the 2nd if it gets stacked with anti-second justices?

 They will claim for the greater good and public safety WAIT... they are still blowing smoke up your ass..... with more bull**** and lies .. that you guessed it!  no one needs a AR / semi style anything mag sizes be dammed.. and because our founding Fathers only had flint locks .... so why should the 2dn cover any newer weapons.. etc etc ....... lips are now pressed tightly and with one last blow . because >1% of the US population is Crazy and +/- whatever % are criminals that NO ONE can own a Gun or some other line of bull****... and that mass shooting will be a thing of the past Rainbows and Sunshine.. till lil Johnny takes a few box cutters to school.. it will be mass killings not shootings so the world will be safer ....

 I seen a story few days back with the slant! and i mean slant...  how many mass shooting are stopped by "a good guy with a gun" as they break down .. shooter shoots people , takes his own life, high % shooter kills people and police shot him etc % drops. police arrest shooter after a fight lower % police arrest no fight.  crowd tackles holds for police ... then> good guy with a gun was like some low% number .. so by their point of view... WHY should any one carry a gun. let the police handle it... BUT what they did NOT say was how many of those mass shouting took place in a Gun Free Zone?? a place where the good guy with a gun would not 99.9% of the time be armed... schools, malls, some place posted ,some but not all churches.. but yet the reporter wants the public to buy into their bull that mass shooting won't be stopped by good guys with guns... oh and i forgot when the police come the good guys with guns would just slow down the police and/or maybe get shot and get in the way.. so in his opinion we should not have Guns!

get rid of GFZ .. at schools lock the dam outside doors install intercoms , if mom or dad or some one want to pick up a kid they can wait outside. no one NEEDS to enter a school mid day. yes a shooter may find another way in ... or just follow the herd first thing in the morning .. lets face it if some one wants to kill it dose not take a gun.   so why do they keep blaming guns ... sound like the ole witch trials "she's a witch burn her at the stake" ... dimwits have to blame something ... crazy people CAN'T be blamed !! "not guilty by reason of insanity" proves that.. so it has to be the Gun's fault...

do you think this New York ruling is safe? what happens if 2-3 Supreme court justices get fired because they lied to Congress ? do you think this ruling will be safe or overturned ? something to think on. and if they keep their jobs whats next on the chopping block??

[orion]

well the Supreme court took a down right **** on 50 years of  Roe verse wade. and ole Clarence T wants to take a crap on a few more things. looked at the cameras and said so... so counting on the Supreme court justices for anything just and correct is at the least a coin toss ...

I would say that this court righted a wrong that the court did 50 years ago...that a court let alone the SCOTUS can not make law from the bench!

The upcoming ruling on WV v. EPA should be the one to start raining in the alphabet depts. if this court keeps going originalist.

[greg58]

I would say that this court righted a wrong that the court did 50 years ago...that a court let alone the SCOTUS can not make law from the bench!

You are right on that!

[Jito463]

Supreme court justices that down right lied to congress during the confirmation hearings

Can you tell me specifically where they lied?  Because I don't see a lie anywhere in what they said.  If you're referring to the questions about RvW, then they didn't lie at all.  They acknowledged it as important and that was current precedent, both of which was true at the time.  They never said that they wouldn't overturn it.  By that logic, no prior opinion from SCOTUS should ever be overturned.