Guns are still America’s religion

[Citysnaps]

The MTA is a public benefit corporation, so maybe they can ban guns if they want.

Curious... what is a public benefit corporation? An entity that is supervised under a city charter? Or would that include private entities like shopping malls, theaters, churches/synagogues, night clubs, music venues, etc?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The Supreme Court has decided to expand on Scalia’s terrible Heller decision by telling states what kinds of regulations they can or cannot impose on guns.

This will lead to more guns and more gun deaths.

I just want to point out that the current crop of right-wing judges claim to focus on the original text of the Constitution. But when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they ignore the first part of it entirely, and they insert the right of self-defense which is NOT in the Constitution. The whole “originalism” nonsense was nothing but a pose, and a convenient way to focus on a word here and a word there in order to force a radical ideology on America.

This is extreme “judicial activism” which they all claimed to oppose … until they got a majority and decided to overrule law after law after law based on an unpopular ideology.

Originalists should be banned from the supreme court. If you believe society hasn't evolved in over 200 years then you are absolutely disqualified.

 

[SuperMatt]

The MTA is a public benefit corporation, so maybe they can ban guns if they want. At least it would probably take a few years before the SCOTUS gets the case in front of it to declare that such corporations can’t. (I could be wrong - there may already be a case that deals with whether a public benefit corporation is a government entity for such purposes)

They just have to say that allowing guns violates the corporation’s deeply held religious beliefs. Now THERE would be a conundrum for this Supreme Court. Which of their made-up rights do they value more? A corporation’s religious right or gun rights completely divorced from a well-regulated militia?

 

[ronntaylor]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1539990558424399875/

 

[SuperMatt]

I recommend that people read the opinion. It permanently puts to bed any notion that this court cares about “original text” in any way. Instead, they rely on, in Thomas’ words: "The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."

That could literally mean anything you want it to. What history? What states? What kinds of guns? How far back in history? This is the ultimate in subjective, arbitrary reasoning.

And the original premise of the opinion is: "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."

Sorry - the 2nd amendment doesn’t say “in public” and it doesn’t say “for self-defense.” Justice Thomas put all that in there himself. Here’s what it really says:

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.

This court cut up the constitution and glued it back together, inserting their own text all over it.

This is what America gets for voting for Trump. This shame will be with us for multiple decades now.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

PS - It’s pretty f-ing rich to invoke the 14th amendment after they destroyed the voting rights act.

PPS - They still support passing laws preventing people from threatening SCOTUS justices from guns! Can we carry AR-15s into the Supreme Court now? If not, why not????

 

[SuperMatt]

Sorry for all the posts, but I wanted to point out one more massive piece of bullshit from Thomas. He quotes Heller to prove a point, but watch what he does...

The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.

Look carefully: the part that says self defense is OUTSIDE THE QUOTE. Again, he added that shit himself!!! This is just utter and complete nonsense.

 

[Eric]

SCOTUS made a calculated decision that not enough children are being massacred.

 

[SuperMatt]

SCOTUS made a calculated decision that not enough children are being massacred.

Since they’re making abortion illegal, and they consider fetuses equal to children, gotta make up the difference somehow. Let them be born, then gun them down.

 

[Herdfan]

I am fine with concealed carry. I don't understand the people walking around like they're rambo. Seek some mental help. Those are the people I stay far away from.

Exactly. I rarely carry in public (there is one in my truck locked in a console vault) but when I do, unless you knew, you would never know.

 

[Herdfan]

Not funny how conservatives scream about States Rights, until it has to do with guns and abortion.

I believe if RvW is overturned, it will give the rights back to the states. So not sure I understand your position.

As for guns, that is a Federal right in the Constitution. Not really sure how the states were allowed to get involved in the first place.

 

[SuperMatt]

If this is how this court interprets the 2nd amendment, pack the court. Or, to borrow a phrase from the Tea Party: “Repeal and Replace” the amendment.

The more I read this opinion, the more I realize Thomas and Alito (and Scalia before them) are amateur historians trying to use their view of history to impose centuries-old ideas upon America. Why couldn’t they just channel their historical fantasies into Civil War reenactments on the weekends or something?

Using the “history of firearms regulation“ as a reason to invalidate a 100-year old law is just plain laughable. This law is LITERALLY historic firearms regulation. Justice Breyer’s dissent just plain nails Thomas and Alito to the wall, exposing their flawed reasoning for what it is: selective bits of ”history” masquerading as legal precedent.

 

[Huntn]

I believe if RvW is overturned, it will give the rights back to the states. So not sure I understand your position.

As for guns, that is a Federal right in the Constitution. Not really sure how the states were allowed to get involved in the first place.

Buzzer sound… SCOTUS overturned a New York State gun control Law.

 

[Herdfan]

Buzzer sound… SCOTUS overturned a New York State gun control Law.

The Constitution, specifically the 10A which says:

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.

So in this case, the right to bear arms is a Federal right protected by the 2A. It is a right delegated to the people and the states never should have been allowed to get involved. NY did and SCOTUS told them No.

 

[GermanSuplex]

That's ok, all of our republican friends will join in on the calls for curbing weapon glorification and lax gun laws once they and their families start seeing armed men walking down the streets in their neighborhoods.

This is somehow tied to a white supremacy fantasy - do the people advocating for everyone open carrying or concealed carry (and how do you conceal carry a rifle?) think its just going to be them walking the streets and grocery store aisles with weapons? Are they ok with people who don't match their skin shade doing the same? I sure hope so.

All I'm going to do is sit back and enjoy the entertainment, and try my best to stay out of it.

 

[SuperMatt]

The Constitution, specifically the 10A which says:



So in this case, the right to bear arms is a Federal right protected by the 2A. It is a right delegated to the people and the states never should have been allowed to get involved. NY did and SCOTUS told them No.

You actually may have gotten this backwards…

SCOTUS Is Violating the 10th Amendment by Not Letting States Enact Gun Control

The Supreme Court’s legal doctrine on gun rights makes it complicit in the U.S.’s crisis of gun violence.

truthout.org

Before the court’s 2010 decision in McDonald, settled constitutional law established that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was not a “fundamental” right and therefore the Second Amendment did not impose constitutional constraints on state and local governments. McDonald rejected two centuries of consistent precedent by holding that the Second Amendment imposes legally binding limits on state governments.

And SCOTUS didn’t “told them No” in any way. This law had been in place before anybody on the court was even born. So who are they telling “No” to?

This court is so full of it. They overturn 200 years of precedent allowing for states to regulate firearms, and then invoke “history” as their reasoning.

Force states to give money to religious organizations, tell them they cannot regulate guns, but if they want to restrict voting? Hey, that’s A-OK! Nobody can honestly believe there is a judicial philosophy here. It is pure ideology, picking and choosing the “judicial philosophy“ that gets them the ideological result they want in any particular case.

 

[Herdfan]

You actually may have gotten this backwards…

SCOTUS Is Violating the 10th Amendment by Not Letting States Enact Gun Control

The Supreme Court’s legal doctrine on gun rights makes it complicit in the U.S.’s crisis of gun violence.

truthout.org

And SCOTUS didn’t “told them No” in any way. This law had been in place before anybody on the court was even born. So who are they telling “No” to?

This court is so full of it. They overturn 200 years of precedent allowing for states to regulate firearms, and then invoke “history” as their reasoning.

Force states to give money to religious organizations, tell them they cannot regulate guns, but if they want to restrict voting? Hey, that’s A-OK! Nobody can honestly believe there is a judicial philosophy here. It is pure ideology, picking and choosing the “judicial philosophy“ that gets them the ideological result they want in any particular case.

Got to push back here a bit.

Just because it lasted 200 years doesn't mean it was right in the first place. Remember, Dred Scot was overturned so right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of time passed. The states never should have been allowed to regulate guns in the first place, so that is on those who lived them to not stop it.

Please tell me how states are forced to give money to religious organizations. If you are referring to the Maine decision, that idea to use a phrase you like to use, has already been debunked.

 

[SuperMatt]

Got to push back here a bit.

Just because it lasted 200 years doesn't mean it was right in the first place. Remember, Dred Scot was overturned so right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of time passed. The states never should have been allowed to regulate guns in the first place, so that is on those who lived them to not stop it.

Please tell me how states are forced to give money to religious organizations. If you are referring to the Maine decision, that idea to use a phrase you like to use, has already been debunked.

Again, the SCOTUS’ reason for overturning the law was “historical firearm regulation” but they used that to literally overturn 200 years of precedent. The opposite of history. If they wanted to toss out some other reason for the overturning of the law, I’d like to see it. But using history as a justification to overturn 200 years of historical precedent is truly absurd.

As I said before, they already made up their minds based on an ideology of maximally permissive gun laws. Historically that has NOT been the case in America, as 200 years of precedent show. But they CLAIM history is their reason (since the amendment itself never mentions self defense ). Stephen Breyer did a way better job of exposing their BS than I can, so feel free to read his dissent. If you want to read an amateur historian’s absurdist view of history, you can read Thomas’ opinion too. Gotta love how he goes back hundreds of years to Europe before guns even existed... Just so unbelievable to see that in an actual Supreme Court opinion.

 

[SuperMatt]

Please tell me how states are forced to give money to religious organizations. If you are referring to the Maine decision, that idea to use a phrase you like to use, has already been debunked.

I don’t understand what you are saying. If you’re going to “debunk” something then do so. Provide a link or explain it yourself.

 

[Herdfan]

I don’t understand what you are saying. If you’re going to “debunk” something then do so. Provide a link or explain it yourself.

SCOTUS said that if you are going to provide tuition assistance, you can't discriminate. They are not forced (your word) to do anything. Just if they are going to do it, they can't discriminate between type of schools. Maine is free to stop the tuition assistance program any time they please.

Again, the SCOTUS’ reason for overturning the law was “historical firearm regulation” but they used that to literally overturn 200 years of precedent. The opposite of history. If they wanted to toss out some other reason for the overturning of the law, I’d like to see it. But using history as a justification to overturn 200 years of historical precedent is truly absurd.

As I said before, they already made up their minds based on an ideology of maximally permissive gun laws. Historically that has NOT been the case in America, as 200 years of precedent show. But they CLAIM history is their reason (since the amendment itself never mentions self defense ). Stephen Breyer did a way better job of exposing their BS than I can, so feel free to read his dissent. If you want to read an amateur historian’s absurdist view of history, you can read Thomas’ opinion too. Gotta love how he goes back hundreds of years to Europe before guns even existed... Just so unbelievable to see that in an actual Supreme Court opinion.

Should Dred Scot not been overturned because we had hundreds of years of history doing it the other way? Legally?

Bad decisions need to be fixed regardless of the passage of time.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I'm happy about this decision. As a permit holder in NYC, I shouldn't have to be regulated to only have protection within my home. Not that I plan to conceal carry often, but there are times and places when I feel safer to do such. And this is especially a right you want to have as you get older.

Besides the minority of possible incidents, I personally don't think this will change much of anything. I don't think it's going to deter or increase violent crimes in any noticeable way.