We Win!!!

[Bang]

Prince

will he (Shapiro) continue to violate his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?

What is the provision for making an oath-breaker conform, and why is it not being pursued all these many many years??

[philadelphia patriot]

I see this as being slightly more significant. Most of the justices actually recognized (once again but firmer) that carrying (bearing arms) IS a constitutional right and states can't decide who or when you have that right. This could lead to bigger things.

Firearms Policy Coalition all ready wants to challenge AWB and mag limits.

[Defender]

From CNN: 'The city will review its approach to defining *sensitive locations* where carrying a gun is banned, as well as the application process, Adams wrote.' That's NYC Mayor Eric Adams.

Adams said he didn't want NYC to turn into the "Wild West". Good grief, it already is. Crime is up 36% in the last year, that includes murders, assaults, and getting pushed onto subway tracks.

[Defender]

Part of Justice Alioto's reply to the dissenters.

"In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?"

"The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home?"

"I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional."

This is a masterful response to the dissenters. The liberals on the court brought up examples that are irrelevant to the decision in question, and they are in the main caught up in emotionalism instead of looking at the facts of the law that was being challenged.

[Defender]

Here's what NJ Gov. Murphy said: "Based on a deeply flawed constitutional methodology", (You mean a methodology consistent with proper jurisprudence) "a right-wing majority" (Majority of Patriots) "on the United States Supreme Court has just said that states can no longer decide for ourselves how best to limit the proliferation of firearms in the public sphere". (It's not your call when your laws violate the people's rights) "Let there be no mistake - this dangerous action" (This sensible and lawful action) "will make America a less safe country". (A safer country because the people now can protect themselves).

"But let me equally be clear that, here in New Jersey, we will do everything in our power to protect our residents." (What, by violating this ruling?) "Anticipating this decision, my administration has been closely reviewing options we believe are still available to us" (Just respect the Court's decision) "regarding who can carry concealed weapons" (Every law-abiding citizen) "and where they can carry them". (There should be few places off-limits). "We are carefully reviewing the Court's language and will work to ensure that our gun safety laws" (gun control laws) "are as strong as possible while remaining consistent with this tragic ruling". (A monumental and correct ruling).

[PickingPA]

Murphy will likely ban the possession of handgun caliber ammunition

And since 9mm has already been declared to be capable of field dressing the lungs and likely other organs, he might get done.

Obviously to be challenged

[Defender]

Murphy will likely ban the possession of handgun caliber ammunition

And since 9mm has already been declared to be capable of field dressing the lungs and likely other organs, he might get done.

Obviously to be challenged

That will be just great for NJ gun owners. They will be able to go to the range with their pistols and yell BANG while they dry fire.

[SevenMilePete]

Just reading the decision on NYSRPA V Bruen. It sounds to a non-technischen like myself that the SC ruled citizens have a RIGHT to carry outside of the home! Any lawyers available to provide the english translation and implications?

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...f8761ffa84e3e8

What did we win? We still need to get a permit. We still can't carry in DC, Maryland, NJ, NY. I don't see what "We Won".

[Krichardson]

What did we win? We still need to get a permit. We still can't carry in DC, Maryland, NJ, NY. I don't see what "We Won".

Whatever we did or didn't win people on the left sure are madder than a mother fucker!

[PickingPA]

Whatever we did or didn't win people on the left sure are madder than a mother fucker!

It’s just getting started

Wait til the abortion ruling, possibly today.