Guns are still America’s religion

[SuperMatt]

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.

I said REPEATEDLY that using “historical firearms laws” as a justification for overturning a 100-year old firearms law doesn’t make any fucking sense. I am saying that his REASONING is flawed. None of your responses have even tried to rebut that, just insisting that somehow the ruling is bad, because... well you just think it’s bad. No other reason given. If Thomas gave some other reasoning, then let’s discuss that. But the “history” reasoning is bullshit, pure and simple. I was glad to see that when I read the Breyer dissent, he came to the same conclusion, but much more eloquently said than I.

And do you really want to be “that guy” who conflates gun permit laws to slavery? A state limiting your ability to carry assault weapons with you everywhere you go is JUST LIKE being a slave!

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.

Let’s look at this practically: they are only “forced” to pay to religious schools IF they give money to any private schools at all. Which leaves a choice - end all private school funding or you MUST give money to religious schools.

This de facto forces Maine to pay the religious schools. Why? In the opinion itself, you can see that Maine's constitution requires them to provide public education. It also states that many areas of the state do NOT have public schools, so the only feasible solution was to give money for kids to attend private schools. Even if Maine wanted to end all funding of private schools immediately, their state constitution would not allow it because even if they wanted to build public schools to accommodate those kids, it would take time and money... so at least until they could accomplish that, they literally ARE forced to pay money to religious schools, at least as a stopgap until they can build more schools... which could be many years. So, yes, they are being FORCED to pay by the coming together of their state constitution and this SCOTUS ruling.

 

[SuperMatt]

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.

I understand you think it may not change much. However, the statistics in states with laws similar to NY’s as opposed to those without them is telling. Here’s what Justice Breyer had to say:

In particular, studies have shown that “may issue” licensing regimes, like New York’s, are associ- ated with lower homicide rates and lower violent crime rates than “shall issue” licensing regimes. For example, one study compared homicide rates across all 50 States during

the 25-year period from 1991 to 2015 and found that “shall issue” laws were associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates. Siegel, 107 Am. J. Pub. Health, at 1924–1925, 1927. Another study longitudinally followed 33 States that had adopted “shall-issue” laws be- tween 1981 and 2007 and found that the adoption of those laws was associated with a 13%–15% increase in rates of violent crime after 10 years. Donohue, 16 J. Empirical Le- gal Studies, at 200, 240. Numerous other studies show sim- ilar results. See, e.g., Siegel, 36 J. Rural Health, at 261 (finding that “may issue” laws are associated with 17% lower firearm homicide rates in large cities); C. Crifasi et al., Association Between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties, 95 J. Urb. Health 383, 387 (2018) (finding that “shall issue” laws are associated with a 4% increase in firearm homicide rates in urban counties); M. Doucette, C. Crifasi, & S. Frattaroli, Right-to-Carry Laws and Firearm Workplace Homicides: A Longitudinal Analysis (1992– 2017), 109 Am. J. Pub. Health 1747, 1751 (Dec. 2019) (find- ing that States with “shall issue” laws between 1992 and 2017 experienced 29% higher rates of firearm-related work- place homicides); Brief for Social Scientists et al. as Amici Curiae 15–16, and nn. 17–20 (citing “thirteen . . . empirical papers from just the last few years linking [“shall issue”] laws to higher violent crime”).

The data say that the laws decrease violence in states that had them.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I understand you think it may not change much. However, the statistics in states with laws similar to NY’s as opposed to those without them is telling. Here’s what Justice Breyer had to say:



The data say that the laws decrease violence in states that had them.

I personally don't think you can just take those stats at face value without looking at other stats. You have to look at the population, economy, gang activity, sentencing laws, gentrification, and etc. Also, those years cover a good number of eras, most notably, the Crack era, but also multiple recessions, and today dealing with the effects of Covid. I think factoring states as a whole is different than cites within those states.

Big cities like NYC and LA have a much larger budget for law enforcement, and endlessly being developed.

In 2021 Chicago had close to 800 homicides, most from shootings. The more populated NYC at 485, and LA at 395. And Chicago as I believe has stricter gun laws than NYC.
And in the not so distant past, New Orleans had the highest percentage per capita (probably still does). Houston in 2021 had more homicides than NYC or LA.

I simply don't see a clear pattern.
I don't think it's safe to say that a ban on conceal carry is proven to make a city safer, or allowing it makes a city less safe.

 

[SuperMatt]

I personally don't think you can just take those stats at face value without looking at other stats. You have to look at the population, economy, gang activity, sentencing laws, gentrification, and etc. Also, those years cover a good number of eras, most notably, the Crack era, but also multiple recessions, and today dealing with the effects of Covid. I think factoring states as a whole is different than cites within those states.

Big cities like NYC and LA have a much larger budget for law enforcement, and endlessly being developed.

In 2021 Chicago had close to 800 homicides, most from shootings. The more populated NYC at 485, and LA at 395. And Chicago as I believe has stricter gun laws than NYC.
And in the not so distant past, New Orleans had the highest percentage per capita (probably still does). Houston in 2021 had more homicides than NYC or LA.

I simply don't see a clear pattern.
I don't think it's safe to say that a ban on conceal carry is proven to make a city safer, or allowing it makes a city less safe.

The fact that the data spans such a long time period and persists over the course of many studies gives it more credibility, not less.

When the mass shootings started in 1999, the NRA promised more guns would solve the problem. The opposite has happened. The more loose gun laws have become, the more gun deaths we have in America.

It’s insanity to think that continued loosening of gun laws and more gun purchases will turn the trend in the other direction.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

The fact that the data spans such a long time period and persists over the course of many studies gives it more credibility, not less.

When the mass shootings started in 1999, the NRA promised more guns would solve the problem. The opposite has happened. The more loose gun laws have become, the more gun deaths we have in America.

It’s insanity to think that continued loosening of gun laws and more gun purchases will turn the trend in the other direction.

Well I'm no fan of the NRA, nor do I view guns as a solution to anything. I'm also no fan of gun manufacturers having god like immunity to civil suits or criminal charges.
I'm definitely think we should have a National Gun Registry.

What I'm 100% against is, not having the right to carry my firearm outside my home within reasonable public locations.

The majority of shootings (fatal or not) come from those with illegal possession and/or in the act of a crime.

The real problem is, the amount of guns that get into the hands of criminals. The ones up to no good are not in possession of old decrepit guns. The amount of loopholes and gun trafficking keeps them with a constant flow. I personally don't understand how the supply from gun manufacturers matches the actually legal demand.

 

[SuperMatt]

Well I'm no fan of the NRA, nor do I view guns as a solution to anything. I'm also no fan of gun manufacturers having god like immunity to civil suits or criminal charges.
I'm definitely think we should have a National Gun Registry.

What I'm 100% against is, not having the right to carry my firearm outside my home within reasonable public locations.

The majority of shootings (fatal or not) come from those with illegal possession and/or in the act of a crime.

The real problem is, the amount of guns that get into the hands of criminals. The ones up to no good are not in possession of old decrepit guns. The amount of loopholes and gun trafficking keeps them with a constant flow. I personally don't understand how the supply from gun manufacturers matches the actually legal demand.

While I don’t personally agree that the right to carry a gun everywhere on your person is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, I do agree that the many loopholes in background checks are a big reason we have 12 guns for every 10 Americans.

I think the NRA’s #1 interest is the manufacturers, and a pipeline of straw purchasers is good for their business, so keeping the laws as lax as possible on those types of shady dealings are a priority for the NRA.

 

[SuperMatt]

English law from 1688 is more important than the actual text of the constitution. Yes, this is your “originalism” from Clarence Thomas.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540001916389695489/

I guess the idea is to be more like medieval England:

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540005971275042818/

Of course, here’s one argument FOR such a strategy: I guess you gotta laugh or you’ll cry…

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540007747621916672/

 

[SuperMatt]

There is some room for optimism.

The Senate has passed a gun control bill. Although it doesn’t do much, I think something is better than nothing. Another reason for optimism is that the NRA opposed even this modest bill, and 15 GOP Senators voted for it anyway. Is the NRA’s influence waning? I certainly hope so.

I also saw that Maine already changed their school funding law to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling. So I think NY and other states will find ways to limit the proliferation of firearms despite the absurd ruling this week.

 

[SuperMatt]

This piece offers an unvarnished look at what the Supreme Court has become:

The US supreme court voted in favour of … people getting shot — Guardian US

The supreme court think that restrictions on handguns are grotesquely exceeding their powers. But outlawing abortion? Totally fine

apple.news

Even those pretending that there is a true legal philosophy at play here have to struggle to keep a straight face. “The test is, uh, if we had a seance, can we imagine that a powder-wig-wearing slaveholder with wooden teeth would have imagined this same exact law, word for word, in 1776?”

The court is now fully in control of people who believe they are on a mission from god to drag America back to the good old days of 1885, when corporations were free to whip who they wanted and noble American men wore six shooters everywhere and women stayed home and had babies whether they liked it or not.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

There is some room for optimism.

The Senate has passed a gun control bill. Although it doesn’t do much, I think something is better than nothing. Another reason for optimism is that the NRA opposed even this modest bill, and 15 GOP Senators voted for it anyway. Is the NRA’s influence waning? I certainly hope so.

I also saw that Maine already changed their school funding law to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling. So I think NY and other states will find ways to limit the proliferation of firearms despite the absurd ruling this week.

It's going to be next to impossible to get around the ruling. It has already been stated that NYC can't declare the entire Manhattan or any borough a gun free zone.

 

[SuperMatt]

It's going to be next to impossible to get around the ruling. It has already been stated that NYC can't declare the entire Manhattan or any borough a gun free zone.

You could be right. It’s amazing how fast we went from 2008’s Heller decision to this. Heller: Guns are an individual right, but Scalia gave great latitude to states to regulate them. Now it is the court who dictates how the states may regulate guns.

One other baffling thing about this ruling was that it refused to define what special places guns could be controlled in. Only that an entire city is too big. It would have been reasonable to give some guidance. Because as it stands, it’s a wide open question. As you said, if it cannot be a city, could it be a borough? Maybe you could ban them from a small government building, but how about a big stadium? If 80.000 people can gather there, why can’t they all be packing heat?

No clear guidance, no apparent judicial philosophy (definitely NOT the textualism they claim to follow), no regard for the shifting attitudes in America towards more gun control…

Judges are supposed to be wise, and judge in a way that acknowledges the effects of their rulings. This ruling is the farthest thing from that IMO. They are paving the way to an expanded court, term limits, or both. Their ideology is NOT reflective of the vast majority of American opinion, nor of centuries of precedent. The court is on a quickly shrinking island.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

There is some room for optimism.

The Senate has passed a gun control bill. Although it doesn’t do much, I think something is better than nothing.

This doesn’t give me any hope. When was the last time Congress passed gun control legislation, 30 years ago? With this legislation and the current climate mass shootings will continue and likely grow and then Congress will go “We’ve already done everything possible. We couldn’t possibly revisit this for at least 3 more decades.”

And Republicans aren't appalled by mass shootings. They celebrate them. It gives them a reason to sell an authoritarian police state that will solve all problems through government-sanctioned violence against specific groups of people where the white gunman is never the bad guy. The bad guy is liberal America that pushed him to shoot.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

You could be right. It’s amazing how fast we went from 2008’s Heller decision to this. Heller: Guns are an individual right, but Scalia gave great latitude to states to regulate them. Now it is the court who dictates how the states may regulate guns.

One other baffling thing about this ruling was that it refused to define what special places guns could be controlled in. Only that an entire city is too big. It would have been reasonable to give some guidance. Because as it stands, it’s a wide open question. As you said, if it cannot be a city, could it be a borough? Maybe you could ban them from a small government building, but how about a big stadium? If 80.000 people can gather there, why can’t they all be packing heat?

No clear guidance, no apparent judicial philosophy (definitely NOT the textualism they claim to follow), no regard for the shifting attitudes in America towards more gun control…

Judges are supposed to be wise, and judge in a way that acknowledges the effects of their rulings. This ruling is the farthest thing from that IMO. They are paving the way to an expanded court, term limits, or both. Their ideology is NOT reflective of the vast majority of American opinion, nor of centuries of precedent. The court is on a quickly shrinking island.

Well the NY gov and NYC mayor have already stated .... NYC Subway system, Gov buildings, Arenas, and etc, are up in the air as a gun free zone. They especially emphasized the Subway system, so I think that's a given.

 

[SuperMatt]

Well the NY gov and NYC mayor have already stated .... NYC Subway system, Gov buildings, Arenas, and etc, are up in the air as a gun free zone. They especially emphasized the Subway system, so I think that's a given.

Sure but if they get sued for that by gun owners, how will the court rule? What is the guidance for appellate courts? Nobody knows… and that’s one of many major flaws in this ruling.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Sure but if they get sued for that by gun owners, how will the court rule? What is the guidance for appellate courts? Nobody knows… and that’s one of many major flaws in this ruling.

Well somebody's always going to sue, for any and everything. I think areas that are super congested, like the Subway, Times Square, gov/city properties, are more than reasonable. Nobody would win a suit for that.

 

[SuperMatt]

Well somebody's always going to sue, for any and everything. I think areas that are super congested, like the Subway, Times Square, gov/city properties, are more than reasonable. Nobody would win a suit for that.

Much of Manhattan is just as congested as Times Square. Try walking the sidewalks of Hell’s Kitchen without at least brushing against somebody… Now imagine a gun-toting idiot with AR-15 and body armor waltzing in there. Even if they don’t shoot, the panic would lead to multiple injuries for sure.

And every political March in DC could now involve hundreds or thousands of armed people.

The court is insane. Period. They are completely disregarding all the things that can go wrong.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Much of Manhattan is just as congested as Times Square. Try walking the sidewalks of Hell’s Kitchen without at least brushing against somebody… Now imagine a gun-toting idiot with AR-15 and body armor waltzing in there. Even if they don’t shoot, the panic would lead to multiple injuries for sure.

And every political March in DC could now involve hundreds or thousands of armed people.

The court is insane. Period. They are completely disregarding all the things that can go wrong.

Body armor is illegal in NYC. And it's carry conceal, not open carry. So an AR-15 would be out of the question.

 

[SuperMatt]

Body armor is illegal in NYC. And it's carry conceal, not open carry. So an AR-15 would be out of the question.

Thanks for the clarifications. I’m glad they can still prevent that type of open carry (we saw how it panicked people in Oklahoma recently).

I wonder if a possible solution to limit concealed weapon carry is a high price for the registration?

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I wonder if a possible solution to limit concealed weapon carry is a high price for the registration?

When I got mines decades ago, it was a $700 fee just to get an official to fill in the paper work and notarize it. They won't accept your application otherwise.
Then I had to take that paperwork to Police headquarters at 1 Police Plaza in Manhattan, which I had to pay a small processing fee.
I was also required to get proof of membership at a shooting range, which was more money out my pocket. This was to show my intention of having a firearm. Telling them it's to protect your home or self is basically an automatic denial.
After a 6 month wait. I get interviewed by a uniformed police officer and had a psych evaluation by another officer. I felt like I was being interviewed to become a Police Officer.
And about a week later, I get approved.
I'm sure the price is a bit higher nowadays. And maybe you're right that it'll jump up again due to this ruling.

Now cause of this ruling, no longer does one need to be interviewed by any officer to question your reasoning for a gun permit. So even for those that just want to keep a gun in the home, they don't have to have proof of a shooting range membership or lie about the reasoning behind wanting a permit.

So yea it's not a process or the payments for someone that just wants to cause trouble.

 

[Herdfan]

What I'm 100% against is, not having the right to carry my firearm outside my home within reasonable public locations.

The majority of shootings (fatal or not) come from those with illegal possession and/or in the act of a crime.

The real problem is, the amount of guns that get into the hands of criminals. The ones up to no good are not in possession of old decrepit guns. The amount of loopholes and gun trafficking keeps them with a constant flow. I personally don't understand how the supply from gun manufacturers matches the actually legal demand.

I think we need to make all gun crimes a Federal crime, just like bank robbery. Remove local DA's from being able to plead out cases to misdemeanors.

And then some mandatory minimums.

Illegal possession - 5 years
Felon in possession - 10 years
Commit crime with gun - 20 years

Get the criminals off the streets.