Supreme Court Decision

[elkduds]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.” Gun control groups said states could revisit and perhaps increase those requirements. States can also say those with a license to carry a gun must not do so openly but must conceal their weapon.

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the decision said “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun.” States have long prohibited felons and the mentally ill from possessing weapons, for example. The decision also said nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess,” Alito noted, so states might also try to limit the availability of specific weapons.

The justices also suggested that states can prohibit the carrying of guns altogether in certain “sensitive places.” A previous Supreme Court decision mentioned schools and government buildings as being places where guns could be off limits. Thomas said that the historical record shows legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses could also be sensitive places. Thomas said courts can “use analogies to those historical regulations of ‘sensitive places’ to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.”

 

[EKYHunter]

Just damn glad that we as Americans have our Constitution with its Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment and the other Amendments.

Most other countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand don’t have a Second Amendment equivalent in their highest law of the land.

USA still #1. Love it, baby! Wouldn’t be anywhere else (except maybe for short-term vacations and overseas hunting trips.) We are truly blessed, TheGrayRider.

Yes we are. Even with all our issues, this is still the greatest country on earth. Even the poorest among us are rich when compared to the rest of the world.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

They let every thug in the city carry guns without fear.....law abiding people should be able to as well.

 

[Rhcuam]

Any ruling that strikes down stupid gun laws is a good thing.

 

[3855WIN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1539616700601188354

 

[3855WIN]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540308188192538625

 

[jt13]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1539616700601188354

That last one seems a little bold

 

[beginnerhunter]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540308188192538625

Institutional capture.

 

[mdcrossbow]

You all seen this? The decision makes perfect sense I believe and is good for hunters, shooters, and gun owners in general.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/23/supreme-court-gun-control/

It's what we are talking about in Md right now.

 

[marshman]

maybe I am reading this wrong, but hasn't this always been true ?

Maybe so at times, but that does not make it correct. That is why we have the three separate branches of government.

 

[Bob-WY]

This is not the decisive decision both sides are making it out to be, it mostly just said you can't have an arbitrary condition to get a permit. The law in question had things that were vague and open to a decision that nobody gets one, or that you have to prove you need one, which is backwards, that's pretty much what was turned over.

States have already said they will go down the "sensitive place" path and try to declare pretty much everywhere "sensitive"

 

[Rhcuam]

Any other big rulings coming out today? Lol What a time to be alive

 

[schmalts]

All this means to me is that I can go around sleeveless in New York.

[Kisses biceps, which I call my guns]

I threw up in my mouth a little..... Now I do agree we need a "GUNS SHOW" loophole law change

 

[Ben Lamb]

The price of freedom pal. Get with it or move to Russia.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I kinda feel meh either way, the decision is so limited it doesn't make much of a difference IMHO.

The specific outcome is limited, but this delivers on an important goal of Thomas - that the 2A not be assessed with less than strict scrutiny. So, for the foreseeable future the district and appellate courts have less flexibility to weigh the individual interests vs state regulatory interests when it comes to gun control. "Reasonable" gun control is still possible, but the range and scope of such various attempts is meaningfully limited with this "clarification" of Scalia's Heller.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So in MA there is "how the government says it works, versus how it works" that's a whole kettle of fish.

But I was told by the Firearms Bureau when I got my permit that they flag your license + plate so when a cop pulls you over they know whether you have a legal weapon, before they even approach. (I've never been pulled over so I'm not sure if this is true)

A gun in the glove compartment load or unload is illegal, regardless. If you have an unrestricted LTC and are carrying the gun must be under your immediate control at all times, so on your person. Maybe in the center console, in our class we were told explicitly the glove compartment is a no no.

If you don't have an unrestricted LTC then a gun must be unloaded, with a trigger lock installed case, out of your reach. If it's an AR it has to be in a locked case. If you have a sedan with a locking trunk you don't need the trigger lock.

Seems complicated, but basically when I go deer hunting I just put my shotgun in the truck unloaded with a trigger lock installed and I'm good to go.

And this is one of my strongest reasons for disliking much of the gun control attempts. All kinds of fidgety restricts that do NOTHING to prevent criminal use of guns, but creates a felony trap for the otherwise law abiding citizen. Either I am a sufficient threat to public safety that I can not have a gun or I am not a sufficient threat. That should be the question, not whether a soft-sided case is a "case" (a real MN case).

 

[VikingsGuy]

then all rulings become temporary and subject to the political whims of the majority of the court at any particular time.

For the 220 years since Marbury v. Madison this has been the undeniable law of the land. Nothing that happens or doesn't happenin June of 2022 changes that.

Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

A table of Supreme Court decisions in which the Court overturned a prior ruling. The table contains only cases where the Court explicitly stated that it is overruling a prior decision or issued a decision that is the functional equivalent of an express overruling.

constitution.congress.gov

 

[schmalts]

The price of freedom pal. Get with it or move to Russia.

View attachment 227387

Just keep that pit hair from waving at us please

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And this is one of my strongest reasons for much of the gun control attempts. All kinds of fidgety restricts that do NOTHING to prevent criminal use of guns, but creates a felony trap for the otherwise law abiding citizen. Either I am a sufficient threat to public safety that I can not have a gun or I am not a sufficient threat. That should be the question, not whether a soft-sided case is a "case" (a real MN case).

Are you telling me that the deciding factor of whether you need a concealed weapon permit or not shouldn't hinge on whether you drive a Tacoma or a Corolla?

 

[VikingsGuy]

No, the court has been pretty good throughout history of following precedent, and leaving alone rulings they don't agree with.

SCOTUS averages one reversal a year. Some are socially important, some not. One person's forbearance is another person's just denied.