NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[teratos]

It sounds like the held cases will be a win also.

Mag limits, AW ban - gone?

They will still need to be heard.

 

[delaware_export]

I hit cnn to see the heads asplodin! Yeah. They are. And the resistance is starting. Ny gov already saying outright they’ll see how they can repressing the exercise of this right.

If you want to watch CNN live I think this is working

Watch CNN Live Streaming - CNN News Stream Online

Watch CNN News Live Stream. CNN News TV International Online streaming telecasting live transmission from United States of America (USA).

www.livenewsmag.com

 

[eruby]

When Woolard came out, you could order a slip opinion by mail.

Can that be done for this?

 

[Decoy]

The local media is acting like this doesn't effect Maryland, what am i missing.

 

[whistlersmother]

They will still need to be heard.

Yes, but it sounds like wins when they are heard.

 

[budman93]

The local media is acting like this doesn't effect Maryland, what am i missing.

Heads in the sand.

 

[PEEJAY]

I dont really comment on this forum...more of a lurker. BUT HOT DANNNG im shakin a little bit. EAT S*** COMMIES

 

[mikem623]

Happy Birthday, Justice Thomas!!

Today IS my birthday and I couldn't ask for a better present. FREEDOM

 

[Brute]

Couldn't the governor, by way of redefining/clarifying/eliminating "good & substantial", immediately order MSP to comply with today's ruling? If so, man, it's too bad we don't have a conservative governor.

 

[rbird7282]

Someone keeping an eye on Angrier Chamblee? Box wine section at her local liquor store better watch out.

I’m sure every wine store within a 10 mile radius of her has already been cleared out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisD]

Couldn't the governor, by way of redefining/clarifying/eliminating "good & substantial", immediately order MSP to comply with today's ruling? If so, man, it's too bad we don't have a conservative governor.

Not a chance from Squishy Larry.

 

[TopTechAgent]

Couldn't the governor, by way of redefining/clarifying/eliminating "good & substantial", immediately order MSP to comply with today's ruling? If so, man, it's too bad we don't have a conservative governor.

I was just coming here to ponder what Hogan will/can do. I doubt he will make any moves since he's poising for president. The pressure should be on MSP for sure.

 

[ironpony]

wondering If truck Guns may now be loaded, by permit holders that is?

 

[pcfixer]

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

6-3 opinion.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

 

[teratos]

Today IS my birthday and I couldn't ask for a better present. FREEDOM

Happy Birthday! Today really is Thomas’ birthday, too.

 

[King Chicken]

I hit cnn to see the heads asplodin! Yeah. They are. And the resistance is starting. Ny gov already saying outright they’ll see how they can repressing the exercise of this right.

Yeah, they don't care about the Supreme Courts decision obviously. They didn't care about the 2nd amendment so why would this be different.

 

[Stoveman]

Frosh is already being a whiny bitch.

 

[pcfixer]

Held: 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. Pp. 8–63. (a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22. (1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15. (2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. 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. (3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 Syllabus can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599). To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22. (b) Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller more explicit, the Court applies that standard to New York’s propercause requirement. Pp. 23–62. (1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.

 

[teratos]

Frosh is already being a whiny bitch.

View attachment 370209

How can he live with himself?

 

[FrankZ]

Frosh is already being a whiny bitch.

They have to examine the ruling to determine the impact to the state but it will impact the state with more deaths? I wonder how long that memo has been sitting in a folder to be printed.