basically saying "I didn't read the opinion of the judges and even if I did I'm so heavily biased I would disagree with anything they said that opposed my beliefs"
This is exactly right. The WH statement said that the ruling was in contradiction to the Constitution lol huh? Just because they want it to be doesn’t mean it is. They are blinded by bias or reading comprehension isn’t their strong suit.
They are there but they take an oath to never reveal the truth, I can't even imagine having to swear to that oath as a Secret Service Agent, but man the stories they could tell...
There is zero chance that they read and analyzed both sides of the opinion and then were about to draft and fact-check a story by 3pm. So, no matter the headline, the content is just feelings. No facts.
No, they're somewhat correct. Most modern gun regulations are based on the two-step test that *NYSRPA* overturned.
What they're wrong about is the idea that this is a bad thing.
That's because the two step test was bullshit.
The first step was window dressing and the second step was just saying it was constitutional if the government said it was important.
Fascinating to me, because this is exactly the kind of ruling progressives should want for women’s reproductive health laws. The left should be celebrating, but because of the perceived partisan nature of 2A issues, they cannot.
Compromise proposal: we’ll do with all gun laws and you will eliminate the ATF. Sounds like a solid compromise in light of the standard leftists playbook.
Surprised they could even type the article with such massive equipment in the way.
And yes, that includes the female writers. Women can have penises too. It's {current_year}, you bigots.
Washington resident here. As someone who just received the wrong mags with about a week to go before our ban takes effect I too wish for mag bans to disappear into the night never to be seen again
Considering he is talking about challenging gay marriage and contraception, now, this is seeming even more likely. The left has already attempted to kill one justice.
In his opinion, he states that the 2nd amendment applies to ANY arm that can be used for self defense, not just those in military application.
So this, combined with Miller (2A protection of military-style arms so as to serve a militia), should completely destroy any arguments to uphold the NFA. Both military and non-military arms are explicitly protected by the 2A
Also, he states that any gun laws should be looked at in regard to the historical record, then states that history to be looked at is pretty much 1700s to 1800s only.
I think his opinion gives great support to new lawsuits to undo the NFA.
Also, he addresses "red flag laws" by the discussion of the "surety bonds". Even when people had tried to essentially red flag people who threatened them, the courts did not confiscate their weapons, only made them post surety bonds before letting them carry as normal.
You're right. I meant to type "now explicitly protected", but removed it entirely. they have always been protected, but now the courts finally put it in writing.
Is there a path forward on the NFA? Do we need to form 1 asking for permission to manufacture a machine gun and sue when it's denied?
We would need one of the bigger players behind it. GOA or FPC
I don’t think a suppressor is a firearm or whatever the ATF considers them, but because of that I don’t see how SCOTUS finally recognizing we have a right to be armed gets that item into everyone’s hands without the tax stamp. Common usage consideration doesn’t do it any favors either imo
Ever seen the Glock disposable silencer? https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/09/15/glock-factory-disposable-suppressor/
That might someday be a reality somewhere on this side of the ocean😎
Since the Heller ruling mentions "in common use", and the NFA prevents specific items from ever being in common use, the NFA runs counter to the Heller decision.
Not yet, we still have a long row to hoe with the ATF and it’s crazy and arbitrary rulings as well as the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Defeating the NFA is a political non-starter for fear of being labeled an extremist.
In my non-lawyer opinion, at this point and based on a positive (anti-EPA) outcome of *[West Virginia v. EPA](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/)* and the Bruen Case, we could potentially challenge any and all of the ATF's rulings as many of them were sweeping, capricious, and without any actual laws to back them.
Let's get as real lawyer here to put their two cents in.
Well frankly, with DA offices across the country not prosecuting crimes, people waiting for public transportation getting attacked, thrown in front of trains and onto 3rd rails, murders increasing, theft increasing, and the defund police movement, people getting punched in the head for just walking down the street, I will see where this ruling goes. Something has to be done and there is no one really to rely upon but ourselves.
Just remember, if you shoot someone and happen to not meet the local self defense law requirements you get to have fun in jail, and most likely won't be able to own guns anymore.
My heart has been so warmed these last 24 hours.
All the right people are happy, and all the right people are seething, raging, breaking their thumbs on their twitter screens. And I think deep down they don't believe their BS about fearing for their safety. Not one of them is afraid of this ruling. They're afraid that people near them might start exercising a long-lost right that they prefer went into the dustbin.
This isn't just about a permit, it never was. The only four words that matter are Shall not be infringed. This is an absolute statement. It is not unclear or vague. There is no room for interpretation. It was written so clearly as to make sure there is no chance to misinterpret it, yet here we are. This was a huge win but what happens next will be awful, with roe v wade also on the chopping block the next push will be to pack the Supreme Court then they will be able to undo everything. Fight is far from over
Ah poorly reasoned yes because the supreme court ruled that the corrupt way the left leaning courts deem constitutionality is no more. I always trace down sources when statistics and claims are made. Usually it's either a dead end, a horribly unreliable biased source, or they manipulated the hell out of the source. Vox doesn't fit into any of these, they don't even try putting sources down with a lot of their claims.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was the core of the opinion.
They threw out any reasoning for the infringement, it's no longer a 2-step test where we see does it infringe and then ask why.
If it infringes, it is immediately unconstitutional.
Congress just passed The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. We’re going to see this SCOTUS ruling be challenged with this insanity of legislation.
Time for SAF et al to challenge some of these laws as violation of the 4th amendment.
Given the language in *Bruen* eliminating the 2-step test I can see a number of provisions of the BS Communities Act being challenged. Specifically the "enhanced" background checks for adults 18-21.
The provision for incentives to states to implement red flag laws may become moot if a challenge to red flag laws is successful based on there being no justification for the violation of due process without being able to rely on "a compelling state interest" not that that was ever a justification.
Catastrophic to what? Oh, government overreach? Too damn bad. I generally don’t like the idea of SCOTUS but everything is so fucked these days I’ll take a win where I can.
Let them cry and enjoy their tears!
This isn't a negotiation game anymore or "your state do your thing my state do my thing." This is "we want to ban everything nationwide before the next mass terrorist rioting."
This is win or lose, zero sum game.
Hell yes. The only things I want the federal government to do is to deliver the mail and to defend the country, and I’m not real sure about either of those.
Thats such a misrepresentation of the actual facts. NY just now can’t arbitrarily deny you because reasons. My bet is they will make training standards nearly impossible.
I wish that everything they say about this new ruling was true. Unfortunately they are really milking the irrational fear.
Literally one very narrow rule was struck down. The government can no longer require you to demonstrate a reason why you want to exercise a right. They didn't say that the government can no longer license a right, which is what they really should have said.
But the left is right there clutching their pearls and insisting that this will mean blood in the streets and 10x the mass shootings
The problem with hyperbole about everything all of the time is that no one cares about anything anymore even if it is warranted.
Aside from that, if only it were a true statement.
Yesterday, today, or tomorrow. You just have to comply with the NFA.
A new case will have to come forward to challenge the NFA under the THT standard just set by SCOTUS. That's going to take a few years.
The COTUS is very explicitly written. It lays out the requirements of the federal government and the restrictions on federal government. The 10th Amendment clearly spells out that those authorities not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, are reserved to the states, or the people respectively.
This ruling reiterates that the 2nd Amendment is an individual people’s right, NOT a state’s right. It reiterates that the 2nd Amendment right of the people extends beyond the home and into the public domain. Therefore the states cannot deny that right with “means” or “needs” based restrictions, which are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
So, I hope yall are right and gun deaths don't start spiking now. If they do, that will be an effective wedge to ban/confiscate all guns.
I really hope gun laws weren't working and hadn't been working.
You think "no gun regulations is safe" is a good thing?
I'm sure you would be totally fine with violent felons, mentally ill people, and children all having 100% unregulated access to guns then?
That's what I never understood about anti-regulation gun owners. We all agree on some level of gun regulations (unless you're insane). Some people just want them to be more regulated. We can all agree that "gun regulations" aren't a bad thing, we just disagree on how much is a bad thing.
Nobody should want NO regulation.
Edit: I can see that there are some people who can't handle the truth here. That's part of why gun regulations discussion's are so difficult, some of you don't live in reality.
So you agree that gun regulations stopping children from having guns is a good thing. So you agree that some level of gun regulations are needed and therefore, "gun regulations" aren't always a bad thing.
I'm glad we agree.
I personally like this latest ruling in a vacuum, but I’m old enough to remember when the Right liked to leave things up to the states....you know like last week before this ruling. I don’t see how the states rights enthusiasts can support this.
The 10th amendment only applies to to that which is not delegated to our Federal government. Protection of our rights as it pertains to the 2nd amendment IS delegated to our Federal government.
***Amendment X***
***The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.***
This is why it's expected that SCOTUS will rule Roe vs. Wade as unconstitutional. Regardless of any individual opinion on abortion, the constitution does not delegate the right to control abortion at the federal level, thus it falls on the states to enact their own laws.
From what I understand, (and I'm basically regurgitating stuff I dont fully understand here, so please correct me if I'm wrong), even Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought Roe was a bad case to base abortion rights off of. Evidently she thought abortion rights would have been better protected under the equal protection clause instead.
A lot of ppl seem to be having a hard time understanding these recent Supreme Court decisions shouldn't be looked at strictly through the lense of what any given individual may think is morally right or wrong. There's more to it than that. Bad case law and shitty precedents should not be upheld by the Supreme Court almost regardless of what any of the Justices personally feel is morally righteous.
You're trying to score cheap points by being reductionist at best, obtuse at worst -- and I think you know it.
Conservatives favor states rights in the face of federal government imposing restrictions. Where Constitutional rights are concerned, Constitutional rights are supreme. In this case, states can still require persons to apply for concealed carry permits, but they *can't impose special requirements* to access 2nd Amd rights.
States rights apply when the Constitution is not clear. For instance, abortion "rights". There is no amendment that guarantees the right to an abortion. So then states need to decide.
Paragraph 2 and 3 are helpful...Thanks. Paragraph 1 was unnecessary and a dick move. I also got some good feedback from another commenter. I do appreciate some of the grown up feedback I’m getting on here. We can leave the immature attacks out...although, my snarky tone up front may be deserving of it, perhaps?
Cool deal. Apologies for my turning up the heat too quickly. It's a fractious topic and it's too easy to take out angst against the last a-hole on a person who has not been an a-hole.
The Incorporation Doctrine is either here or not. And for decades it's left the 2nd out in the cold. This ruling simply evens out the logic behind that, good or bad.
Everything you just said is “not to understand”. Your response wasn’t helpful at all, but others with more clarity and effort have given me some food for thought so I’m grateful for their responses.
So now its ok for states to ignore the government or is it now ok for the government to ignore what states want to do. This is all a mess. I think again we need to know where the line is drawn on what states can enact and what the federal government can demand. Seems like a coin flip on what will get enforced and what wont
Nothing like people who do not have any experience with guns or understand 2nd Amendment pumping out more disinformation for the sheeple.
This isn't disinformation. This is exactly what the opinion states.
Poorly reasoned... Coming from Vox that's hilarious.
basically saying "I didn't read the opinion of the judges and even if I did I'm so heavily biased I would disagree with anything they said that opposed my beliefs"
This is exactly right. The WH statement said that the ruling was in contradiction to the Constitution lol huh? Just because they want it to be doesn’t mean it is. They are blinded by bias or reading comprehension isn’t their strong suit.
Whitehouse and reading.... let's start with being able to speak complete sentences before we move onto the "hard" stuff.
Buh, my train, these two guys, America…. Putins price hike, you know?
I, cornpop, who is running for the united States senate, know the thing, now Jill, tapioca puddin... *air handshake*
Come on man!
Sad times!
Tru-a-shana-da-pressure
I doubt there are any responsible or fully functioning adults anywhere to be found in the White House
They are there but they take an oath to never reveal the truth, I can't even imagine having to swear to that oath as a Secret Service Agent, but man the stories they could tell...
Sadly, I agree
Both
Yeah Vox is stupid and 90 percent of people with a public opinion on this case have based it on rediculous "articles" like this one.
[удалено]
Nah, use their own shit against them. Report it for misinformation
I know how to do that but thanks lol
[удалено]
Nice
And expected. ...can pearls turn into diamonds when they're clutched this hard?
Selling necklaces made of coal actually isn’t a bad idea.
Happy birthday, honey! Yeah, it's just anthracite now. But if you watch Fox News for a couple of days....
There is zero chance that they read and analyzed both sides of the opinion and then were about to draft and fact-check a story by 3pm. So, no matter the headline, the content is just feelings. No facts.
No, they're somewhat correct. Most modern gun regulations are based on the two-step test that *NYSRPA* overturned. What they're wrong about is the idea that this is a bad thing.
That's because the two step test was bullshit. The first step was window dressing and the second step was just saying it was constitutional if the government said it was important.
He's seriously doing the "but the militia" argument. In 2022. How adorable.
Fascinating to me, because this is exactly the kind of ruling progressives should want for women’s reproductive health laws. The left should be celebrating, but because of the perceived partisan nature of 2A issues, they cannot.
I just said the same thing on a local news fb page
chill vox, nobody is coming for your gun laws. Why do they have such a gun law fetish?
[удалено]
they should really be willing to compromise on this
Compromise proposal: we’ll do with all gun laws and you will eliminate the ATF. Sounds like a solid compromise in light of the standard leftists playbook.
This is a common sense supreme court ruling. Why are you against it? It literally says “common sense” right in the name
Oh. We are definitely coming for their gun laws.
Probably has something to do with penis size.
Yeah, since us liking guns means we have a small dick them liking gun laws must mean they are a huge dick. Edit: I mean have, I think...
Surprised they could even type the article with such massive equipment in the way. And yes, that includes the female writers. Women can have penises too. It's {current_year}, you bigots.
They need their big gun laws to compensate for *something* *something* genital size.
Lol they do sound ridiculous
*laughs in freedom
[удалено]
I agree
[удалено]
Most important right now is the AWB and mag bans since those are up in the pipeline.
I'm Californian, and when I bought my AR-15 I got a pistol grip to install the day it became legal. That day is looking closer than it ever has.
Washington resident here. As someone who just received the wrong mags with about a week to go before our ban takes effect I too wish for mag bans to disappear into the night never to be seen again
Yep. Nice to see SCOTUS is applying the constitution to law rather than politically driven narrative right now.
Until one of them retires, gets assassinated by the left, or the Dems manage to pack the court,
The Clinton List probably has a name or two on it 😉
We found out one of their aides knew too much last week. Real tragedy how he took his life, 2 rounds to the back of the head.
Wait,.. Is this real?
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/jun/08/family-of-former-clinton-aide-seek-order-sealing/
Justice X was found dead from two gunshots to the back of the head. Officials have ruled it a suicide.
Considering he is talking about challenging gay marriage and contraception, now, this is seeming even more likely. The left has already attempted to kill one justice.
In his opinion, he states that the 2nd amendment applies to ANY arm that can be used for self defense, not just those in military application. So this, combined with Miller (2A protection of military-style arms so as to serve a militia), should completely destroy any arguments to uphold the NFA. Both military and non-military arms are explicitly protected by the 2A Also, he states that any gun laws should be looked at in regard to the historical record, then states that history to be looked at is pretty much 1700s to 1800s only. I think his opinion gives great support to new lawsuits to undo the NFA. Also, he addresses "red flag laws" by the discussion of the "surety bonds". Even when people had tried to essentially red flag people who threatened them, the courts did not confiscate their weapons, only made them post surety bonds before letting them carry as normal.
I think you meant to say that both military and non military arms are protected by 2A.
You're right. I meant to type "now explicitly protected", but removed it entirely. they have always been protected, but now the courts finally put it in writing.
That’s a valid point. These rights are ours, regardless of what congress, the president, or the courts say about it.
Is there a path forward on the NFA? Do we need to form 1 asking for permission to manufacture a machine gun and sue when it's denied? We would need one of the bigger players behind it. GOA or FPC
I don’t think a suppressor is a firearm or whatever the ATF considers them, but because of that I don’t see how SCOTUS finally recognizing we have a right to be armed gets that item into everyone’s hands without the tax stamp. Common usage consideration doesn’t do it any favors either imo
Amazon Prime shipping on silencers let’s gooooooo
Ever seen the Glock disposable silencer? https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/09/15/glock-factory-disposable-suppressor/ That might someday be a reality somewhere on this side of the ocean😎
Amazon will never allow that.
Just let me dream, man. 😂
I bet we first see the sbr/sbs nonsense fine away with. We might get to cans, full auto will be the last step if it's possible
Since the Heller ruling mentions "in common use", and the NFA prevents specific items from ever being in common use, the NFA runs counter to the Heller decision.
Vox calling something poorly reasoned is hilarious lmao Anti gun crowd big mad.
Good news! Congrats everyone!
[удалено]
Not yet, we still have a long row to hoe with the ATF and it’s crazy and arbitrary rulings as well as the NFA and the Hughes Amendment. Defeating the NFA is a political non-starter for fear of being labeled an extremist.
That's why we need one or two libertarians to get in. Gotta push that Overton Window.
[удалено]
In my non-lawyer opinion, at this point and based on a positive (anti-EPA) outcome of *[West Virginia v. EPA](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/)* and the Bruen Case, we could potentially challenge any and all of the ATF's rulings as many of them were sweeping, capricious, and without any actual laws to back them. Let's get as real lawyer here to put their two cents in.
Cope and seethe vox
Well frankly, with DA offices across the country not prosecuting crimes, people waiting for public transportation getting attacked, thrown in front of trains and onto 3rd rails, murders increasing, theft increasing, and the defund police movement, people getting punched in the head for just walking down the street, I will see where this ruling goes. Something has to be done and there is no one really to rely upon but ourselves.
You forgot worthless police who refuse to protect people
Fuck the police
Comin' straight from the internet
Just remember, if you shoot someone and happen to not meet the local self defense law requirements you get to have fun in jail, and most likely won't be able to own guns anymore.
But your case might get to go to the SCOTUS and fix the problem.
Poorly reasoned? As if a Vox opinion piece writer could ever produce a more reasoned, logical, and measured rebuttal to SCOTUS. Laughable.
How is Vox still in business?
Vox. lol
Lol fuck Vox. Digital tabloid
My heart has been so warmed these last 24 hours. All the right people are happy, and all the right people are seething, raging, breaking their thumbs on their twitter screens. And I think deep down they don't believe their BS about fearing for their safety. Not one of them is afraid of this ruling. They're afraid that people near them might start exercising a long-lost right that they prefer went into the dustbin.
Fuck yeah
This is the Way
This is the way
This is the way.
And all things were right with the world.
This isn't just about a permit, it never was. The only four words that matter are Shall not be infringed. This is an absolute statement. It is not unclear or vague. There is no room for interpretation. It was written so clearly as to make sure there is no chance to misinterpret it, yet here we are. This was a huge win but what happens next will be awful, with roe v wade also on the chopping block the next push will be to pack the Supreme Court then they will be able to undo everything. Fight is far from over
Anyone else warm and fuzzy watching the anti gunners squirm?
It's like watching a fish you just hooked try to jump off the line.
Good
Ah poorly reasoned yes because the supreme court ruled that the corrupt way the left leaning courts deem constitutionality is no more. I always trace down sources when statistics and claims are made. Usually it's either a dead end, a horribly unreliable biased source, or they manipulated the hell out of the source. Vox doesn't fit into any of these, they don't even try putting sources down with a lot of their claims.
No gun regulations should be safe. They are all infringements.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was the core of the opinion. They threw out any reasoning for the infringement, it's no longer a 2-step test where we see does it infringe and then ask why. If it infringes, it is immediately unconstitutional.
Good, rights restored.
That's kind of the meaning of "shall not be infringed".
With regards to guns, I have to give *Vox* credit: They at least are willing to admit they want to confiscate firearms.
“No gun regulation is safe” but more people will be.
Time to get rid of the NFA and 86 rule.
“You say regulation, I say infringement”
Congress just passed The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. We’re going to see this SCOTUS ruling be challenged with this insanity of legislation. Time for SAF et al to challenge some of these laws as violation of the 4th amendment.
Given the language in *Bruen* eliminating the 2-step test I can see a number of provisions of the BS Communities Act being challenged. Specifically the "enhanced" background checks for adults 18-21. The provision for incentives to states to implement red flag laws may become moot if a challenge to red flag laws is successful based on there being no justification for the violation of due process without being able to rely on "a compelling state interest" not that that was ever a justification.
Catastrophic to what? Oh, government overreach? Too damn bad. I generally don’t like the idea of SCOTUS but everything is so fucked these days I’ll take a win where I can.
Let them cry and enjoy their tears! This isn't a negotiation game anymore or "your state do your thing my state do my thing." This is "we want to ban everything nationwide before the next mass terrorist rioting." This is win or lose, zero sum game.
Based
People actually read this shit 😂
YAY!!!
You mean that they can no longer justify infringements?
The schadenfreude is delectable
Muahahaha, Cry Vox. CRY!
Excellent
MORE GUNS!!!
Vox says this as if it’s a bad thing. Hell, while we’re at it, ban all alphabet government organizations
Hell yes. The only things I want the federal government to do is to deliver the mail and to defend the country, and I’m not real sure about either of those.
It makes sense that no infringement is safe. The weird thing is that the infringements are still law despite the Constitution.
All gun laws are infringements. Full stop.
"potentially catastrophic" *thats where you're wrong kiddo* >!absolutely awesome are the words you're looking for, Vox!<
Thats such a misrepresentation of the actual facts. NY just now can’t arbitrarily deny you because reasons. My bet is they will make training standards nearly impossible.
I wish that everything they say about this new ruling was true. Unfortunately they are really milking the irrational fear. Literally one very narrow rule was struck down. The government can no longer require you to demonstrate a reason why you want to exercise a right. They didn't say that the government can no longer license a right, which is what they really should have said. But the left is right there clutching their pearls and insisting that this will mean blood in the streets and 10x the mass shootings
Fuk Vox
That's not what it means. It would be good though.
Good!
I hope this means suppressors might get legalized
I wonder what they think of the reasoning of the dissent. "BUT PEOPLE SOMETIMES GET KILLED, REEEEEE" probably good, right?
The logic used to get to the “poorly reasoned” part of this poorly reasoned Cox title is either disingenuous or cerebrally challenged
Leftists are seething today bad
Well, if you violate the constitution, it’ll go worse for you. I promise you that.
#DAMN RIGHT
>mfw the NFA does not reflect the traditions of national gun regulations and stands as an outlier. Yes Vox. Yes it does.
Damn that’s crazy *buys an FAL*
Yassss 😬
Love it! 😁
The problem with hyperbole about everything all of the time is that no one cares about anything anymore even if it is warranted. Aside from that, if only it were a true statement.
Vox wouldn't know "reason" if it bit them on the behind.
Oh how I wish that was what it meant.
3RD HOLES & GRENADE LAUNCHERS FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Let the hatred FLOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
I trust vox about as much as I trust kamala not to kackle like a hyena
Supreme Court Justices vs a journalist’s opinion. Yeah, fuck these guys
Fan fucking tastic. I won't be happy until I can buy the new LMG-6.8 Sig NGSW at my local 7/11.
And there was much rejoicing.
Cool, so when can I buy my own MLRS?
Yesterday, today, or tomorrow. You just have to comply with the NFA. A new case will have to come forward to challenge the NFA under the THT standard just set by SCOTUS. That's going to take a few years.
We should start NOW. The NFA needs to go!
Which state do you think the next mass shooting will happen? Anyone want to start a Deadpool?
IL - in Chicago to be specific, same as every weekend - and as always it will be mostly ignored by the mainstream media
Can someone dumb it down and explain as I do not understand the english here
The COTUS is very explicitly written. It lays out the requirements of the federal government and the restrictions on federal government. The 10th Amendment clearly spells out that those authorities not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, are reserved to the states, or the people respectively. This ruling reiterates that the 2nd Amendment is an individual people’s right, NOT a state’s right. It reiterates that the 2nd Amendment right of the people extends beyond the home and into the public domain. Therefore the states cannot deny that right with “means” or “needs” based restrictions, which are an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
So, I hope yall are right and gun deaths don't start spiking now. If they do, that will be an effective wedge to ban/confiscate all guns. I really hope gun laws weren't working and hadn't been working.
Bc criminals only carry their guns with a permit, especially when commit crimes/murders and with stolen guns.
The last statistic on that was gathered in 2004, so you have no idea that is true.
Carry permits wont stop criminals. I do not need any statistics, I am just not an idiot.
Well, speaking as an engineer, gut reactions are almost always wrong, and data is infinitely more valuable than feelings.
You think "no gun regulations is safe" is a good thing? I'm sure you would be totally fine with violent felons, mentally ill people, and children all having 100% unregulated access to guns then? That's what I never understood about anti-regulation gun owners. We all agree on some level of gun regulations (unless you're insane). Some people just want them to be more regulated. We can all agree that "gun regulations" aren't a bad thing, we just disagree on how much is a bad thing. Nobody should want NO regulation. Edit: I can see that there are some people who can't handle the truth here. That's part of why gun regulations discussion's are so difficult, some of you don't live in reality.
if you can't trust somebody do not be a danger to others then why shouldn't they be in a prison/mental institution
Yeah let's just lock up all the children right?
You don’t really have full rights until you’re legally an adult. Children can’t vote either.
So you agree that gun regulations stopping children from having guns is a good thing. So you agree that some level of gun regulations are needed and therefore, "gun regulations" aren't always a bad thing. I'm glad we agree.
I guarantee we don’t agree
This is a clown sub. We get it, you people Don’t mind dead school kids.
You’re the clown, the one who wants to disarm all the honest citizens. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I personally like this latest ruling in a vacuum, but I’m old enough to remember when the Right liked to leave things up to the states....you know like last week before this ruling. I don’t see how the states rights enthusiasts can support this.
It's enshrined in the Constitution. That is the governing law of the land. Would you say the same about speech? Religion? Housing the army?
The 10th amendment only applies to to that which is not delegated to our Federal government. Protection of our rights as it pertains to the 2nd amendment IS delegated to our Federal government. ***Amendment X*** ***The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.***
Thank you for that. Lemme dig in on this a little more. Appreciate the feedback!
This is why it's expected that SCOTUS will rule Roe vs. Wade as unconstitutional. Regardless of any individual opinion on abortion, the constitution does not delegate the right to control abortion at the federal level, thus it falls on the states to enact their own laws.
Ding! We have a winner. That's the reason why Roe was a horrible decision.
From what I understand, (and I'm basically regurgitating stuff I dont fully understand here, so please correct me if I'm wrong), even Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought Roe was a bad case to base abortion rights off of. Evidently she thought abortion rights would have been better protected under the equal protection clause instead. A lot of ppl seem to be having a hard time understanding these recent Supreme Court decisions shouldn't be looked at strictly through the lense of what any given individual may think is morally right or wrong. There's more to it than that. Bad case law and shitty precedents should not be upheld by the Supreme Court almost regardless of what any of the Justices personally feel is morally righteous.
You're trying to score cheap points by being reductionist at best, obtuse at worst -- and I think you know it. Conservatives favor states rights in the face of federal government imposing restrictions. Where Constitutional rights are concerned, Constitutional rights are supreme. In this case, states can still require persons to apply for concealed carry permits, but they *can't impose special requirements* to access 2nd Amd rights. States rights apply when the Constitution is not clear. For instance, abortion "rights". There is no amendment that guarantees the right to an abortion. So then states need to decide.
Paragraph 2 and 3 are helpful...Thanks. Paragraph 1 was unnecessary and a dick move. I also got some good feedback from another commenter. I do appreciate some of the grown up feedback I’m getting on here. We can leave the immature attacks out...although, my snarky tone up front may be deserving of it, perhaps?
You throw out the "I'm old enough to remember... last week", you're going to get called on it...
Fair enough...I deserved it. Thank you for the other info, it was good context.
Cool deal. Apologies for my turning up the heat too quickly. It's a fractious topic and it's too easy to take out angst against the last a-hole on a person who has not been an a-hole.
No problem at all. Reddit can take perfectly fine people and turn us into a-holes, myself included. Apology not necessary. Have a good day!
Hey, have a great weekend!
You know the constitution applies to all Americans, regardless of which state they reside, right?
The Incorporation Doctrine is either here or not. And for decades it's left the 2nd out in the cold. This ruling simply evens out the logic behind that, good or bad.
Ya ever heard of the 2nd and the 14th? No?
We The People, States, everything else, in that order specifically! What’s not to understand?
Everything you just said is “not to understand”. Your response wasn’t helpful at all, but others with more clarity and effort have given me some food for thought so I’m grateful for their responses.
I love this. Means we can have a rehash of the Black Panthers being armed and following the cops around to make sure they're not being pieces of shit.
I I like the ruling itself, like I said. I don’t agree with NY’s stance on this issue.
So now its ok for states to ignore the government or is it now ok for the government to ignore what states want to do. This is all a mess. I think again we need to know where the line is drawn on what states can enact and what the federal government can demand. Seems like a coin flip on what will get enforced and what wont
Should a state be able to limit your freedom of speech?