Gun Control

Quote: RonC

The other 3 justices were on the wrong side of this decision. It is a good decision based on an illegal law.

Apparently, there was some discrimination involved in the way the law was applied. A civil rights organization hailed as a victory for civil rights.

I have no doubt, there have been news pieces going back at least 10+ years showing how rich people in NYC like Trump can get one, but send all kinds of normal people with perfect records, and they all get turned down (I don't remeber seeing a single one where somebody successfully completed the process). It's basically designed to be impossible, and if you do everything right they still just deny you. But, it seems like every random rich person got one easy, and none would ever do an interview about the process....

A couple other states like NJ have similiar systems. I am very liberal, but these systems were beyond absurd. There should be steps to get a carry permit, and if you pass them great, if not too bad, but there should not be an arbitrary process where various Law Enforcement agencies have to sign off on feeling that you demonstrate "a need".

Quote: odiousgambit

Now you're not making sense.

New York can still restrict permits for people with the slightest problem, maybe even something like too many parking tickets. But they instead wanted to just reverse the second amendment and refuse to issue permits to anyone. They stepped on their junk with that. Why do you think the lawsuit was brought? If these guys who had every right to defend themselves the way they saw fit, with clean records, were not denied, no lawsuit. New York could have continued to be very restrictive. But NY wanted more than that: No more permits at all.

SCOTUS did the right thing here. Quit making it about Thomas, it was 5-4 I think. If I had the gameplan like, say, the NY Times does, of course I wouldn't hesitate to call you a racist for that. Or maybe compare you to Charles Manson except for god's sake that makes no sense.

What I object to is the argument Thomas made comparing that we should treat all rights the same from the default. That gun rights is the only one where we are requiring you to have a reason to use it.

Let's say an unknown foreigner is illegally in the country who has ties to terrorism. He already can use free speech, even before he is known to anyone. Even before he is detected by the FBI. He doesn't need to Show an ID, or say what his name is. What's to prevent the next case from using the same argument that the second amendment is the only right that is so overly restrictive that we can remove another barrier restricting access. I don't see any reason it won't be used as such.

The 1st is extremely expansive as even a foreign terrorist in the country illegally can use it upon entering. Throwing the second in there like it operates the same is ridiculous. I already know what the gun lobby is going to do with this.

Quote: rxwine

What I object to is the argument Thomas made comparing that we should treat all rights the same from the default. That gun rights is the only one where we are requiring you to have a reason to use it.

Let's say an unknown foreigner is illegally in the country who has ties to terrorism. He already can use free speech, even before he is known to anyone. Even before he is detected by the FBI. He doesn't need to Show an ID, or say what his name is. What's to prevent the next case from using the same argument that the second amendment is the only right that is so overly restrictive that we can remove another barrier restricting access. I don't see any reason it won't be used as such.

The 1st is extremely expansive as even a foreign terrorist in the country illegally can use it upon entering. Throwing the second in there like it operates the same is ridiculous. I already know what the gun lobby is going to do with this.

It still will not operate exactly like the first. There is enough in the ruling to allow reasonable laws for licensing. The problem with the law this addressed is that it was discriminatory. Trump, Gutfeld, and other many others could get permits where average folks could not. We need less laws for thee and not for me.

A terrorist will get weapons. Many don’t even use guns. This does not change how terrorists operate.

The liberal media is not doing analysis, they are doing hysterics. I listened to them for several hours yesterday (MSNBC and CNN).

Quote: RonC

It still will not operate exactly like the first. There is enough in the ruling to allow reasonable laws for licensing. The problem with the law this addressed is that it was discriminatory. Trump, Gutfeld, and other many others could get permits where average folks could not. We need less laws for thee and not for me.

A terrorist will get weapons. Many don’t even use guns. This does not change how terrorists operate.

The liberal media is not doing analysis, they are doing hysterics. I listened to them for several hours yesterday (MSNBC and CNN).

I used terrorist as an example of a very undesirable person being able to use the free speech right. But terrorists have killed plenty of people with guns.

Conservative media is very good at hysterics depending on the subject. Is that news.

Discriminatory! If the Supreme Court next bans abortion, you don't think that will be discriminatory to access. That's all the anti-choice people have been doing is creating less and less access in local communities. Hah ha. Gimme a break.

Quote: rxwine

I used terrorist as an example of a very undesirable person being able to use the free speech right. But terrorists have killed plenty of people with guns.

Conservative media is very good at hysterics depending on the subject. Is that news.

Discriminatory! If the Supreme Court next bans abortion, you don't think that will be discriminatory to access. That's all the anti-choice people have been doing is creating less and less access in local communities. Hah ha. Gimme a break.

Yes, terrorists do kill with guns. Lots of criminals of all types use guns. A large amount of guns are illegally obtained. This ruling has little impact on what criminals do.

RBG pondered a challenge that could come and attack the underpinnings of Roe. It was not a sound decision. She knew that.

Abortion is still legal. Abortion supporters will need to battle in states to make it legal where it is not. They will win some and lose some.

I agree…all networks can provide hysterics. I just happened to be watching the liberal folks yesterday.

Hmmm...USSC says states are free to set their own abortion laws but not gun control laws?

Quote: missedhervee

Hmmm...USSC says states are free to set their own abortion laws but not gun control laws?

I think they found a certain state law violated the Constitution. That does not impact most laws applying to guns at this point as far as I have seen or heard.

Guns are addressed in Constitution; abortion is not.

Courts are free to limit free speech in the courtroom. Where is that in the Constitution?

Quote: rxwine

Courts are free to limit free speech in the courtroom. Where is that in the Constitution?

Go to court, raise a ruckus, get arrested, and file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the rules and laws used to govern behavior in the court.

If your example is relevant, you’ll win.

If not, you will be out a few bucks and have a record.

The court did not say NY could not make gun laws. They just decided that their gun law was unfair.

Quote: rxwine

Courts are free to limit free speech in the courtroom. Where is that in the Constitution?

What are you trying to do? Make a jerk out of yourself?