Results 101 to 109 of 109
Thread: We Win!!!
-
June 24th, 2022, 10:58 AM #101
-
June 24th, 2022, 11:11 AM #102
Re: We Win!!!
Now they will pack the court. Elections haven*t been secured. The red wave is for good bye. And it*s all been done in your face style. You won*t have the cash to buy the gas to go protest. You won*t have the food to give the strength to lift a finger. The chair disintegrated while the wall fell in because nobody noticed the roof was leaking.
The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man
-
June 24th, 2022, 02:10 PM #103
-
June 24th, 2022, 02:47 PM #104
Re: We Win!!!
I am not a lawyer, but I think "we won" SCOTUS precedent that: ('fixes' Heller) "bear arms" means to carry and extends to in public, "the People" in 2A means you and me, not just "the Militia" (or hunters, or everyone but no, one individual) the 14th Amendment applies this to all states ('fixes' states' regulating unilaterally and via Commerce Clause), if states' want their method of carry to be concealed, then they must apply objective regulations to all who apply, and applies Strict Scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment (which with infringements and time) should reduce most of the punitive legislation that is already being discussed to combat this ruling in the seven (formerly) "Shall Issue" states.
Additionally, within the pages are writings that reasonably and truthfully excoriate many of the arguments of gun control proponents... and if 1% of law-abiding residents of NY, CA, NJ, MA, MD, Connecticut & HI apply for carry permits before their governments can change the rules, possibly 865,000-plus new concealed carriers.
National Reciprocity or Constitutional Carry and the like are, maybe, far down the road, but I feel like this ruling is essential to moving the 2A back in the direction it was always meant to be.
-
June 24th, 2022, 02:48 PM #105Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
-
Berks County,
Pennsylvania
(Berks County) - Posts
- 3,312
- Rep Power
- 21474851
Re: We Win!!!
-
June 24th, 2022, 04:57 PM #106PickingPA Guest
-
June 25th, 2022, 07:41 AM #107
-
June 25th, 2022, 01:54 PM #108Super Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
-
somewhere,
Pennsylvania
- Posts
- 623
- Rep Power
- 21474849
Re: We Win!!!
Not quite. Strict scrutiny is different from "text, informed by history."
This may seem like a minor point, but it is actually the most significant win from the entire ruling and the foundation of a huge number of new lawsuits to try to overturn unconstitutional gun control that has previously been (incorrectly) litigated.
This ruling affirms that "text, informed by history" is the standard of review demanded by the 2nd Amendment. Text, informed by history means (essentially) that if a law or regulation relates to the 2nd Amendment, the state must prove that the law or regulation is analogous to a law or regulation that was in place at the time when the 2nd Amendment (or possibly the 14th amendment, when dealing with state laws) was adopted.
Strict scrutiny on the other hand is a type of means-end scrutiny a.k.a. balancing test which is similar to intermediate scrutiny. Strict scrutiny would allow the government to claim that some government objective is justification for upholding gun control laws as long as they make the gun control regulation narrowly tailored to try to have the least undue impact on the right while still trying to achieve their goal. This was tossed out explicitly as invalid.
Now, if a regulation relates to the 2nd Amendment, the government has the burden of proving that it is meaningfully analogous to a regulation that was in place and accepted as constitutional at the time the 2A or 14th Amendment was ratified. That is a much stronger protection than even strict scrutiny.
We all really should read the opinion. Thomas and Alito did a great job.
A few relevant excerpts:
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "unqualified command."If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of "intermediate scrutiny" often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that 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. It is this balance "struck by the traditions of the American people" that demands our unqualified deference.This does not mean that courts may engage in independent means-end scrutiny under the guise of an analogical inquiry. Again, the Second Amendment is the "product of an interest balancing by the people," not the evolving product of federal judges. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635 (emphasis altered). Analogical reasoning requires judges to apply faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances, and contrary to the dissent's assertion, there is nothing "[i]roni[c]" about that undertaking. Post, at 30. It is not an invitation to revise that balance through means-end scrutiny.The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not "a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees." McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second. See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 250*251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal Government. And we have generally assumed that the scope of the protection applicable to the Federal Government and States is pegged to the public understanding of the right when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.I am not a lawyer.
-
June 26th, 2022, 12:06 PM #109
Bookmarks