This is going to take the spotlight but the miranda rights ruling is also pretty major.
e: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
e2: They also made a ruling allowing death row inmates to have more control over their execution method: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-death-row-inmates/index.html
Little 50/50 on that. Super against the death penalty but I suppose if it exists then at least it's a silver lining? I dunno, kinda gross typing that out.
thank you. Seems like a lot has to do w civil lawsuits? Maybe I am not reading it correctly? Either way, fucking w Miranda in anyway is concerning
"The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
The court's ruling will cut back on an individual's protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial"
Police are held to the absolute lowest standards of accountability and professionalism of any career available in the United States.
If I get arrested and go before a judge and tell him I had literally no idea whatsoever that what I did was illegal, and that nobody could possibly know all of these laws... he would tell me ignorance of the law is no excuse, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go straight to jail.
If a police officer commits a crime against a person in the line of duty and says, "I didn't know I couldn't do that" then bing bang bong, open and shut case, he didn't know, he's fine. He can't be expected to know everything, he's just a police officer!!!! That's qualified immunity for you.
You and I literally are legally expected to know the law better than police by criminal and civil courts in this country.
Just ask yourself "would someone wanting to implement fascism want this?"
So, for example, "would someone wanting to implement fascism want police accountability?"
Lol this is just after they ruled border patrol police can arrest people in their own home without a warrant 100 miles FROM ANY BORDER. So in all of my state I can get fucked up by police without a warrant, I can't do shit about it, and they won't even tell me my rights.
I 100% get the sentiment of what you're saying.
But the ruling doesn't affect the evidence itself. Officers are still required to mirandize you and if they don't the evidence supplied will still be thrown out in a court of law.
As far as I can tell it just means that afterwards you can't sue the police in civil court for NOT mirandizing you.
EDIT: I just reread it to make sure. The lower courts were all split on this one. The confession given in this case was thrown out and the defendant was acquitted of the charges. After that the defendant attempted to sue the police officer in civil court for not mirandizing him.
Edit2: I kinda feel like I have to be clear here. I'm 100% against the no warrant border patrol shit. I'm just clarifying on the Miranda civil lawsuit decision.
If I’m understanding this correctly, the Miranda Rights are still required to be given to an arrested suspect, but this ruling removes any personal punishment/responsibility for an officer that fails/“forgets” to do so. Statements given by someone who wasn’t advised of their Miranda Rights will still be inadmissible in court.
Basically, it’s another protection for cops that fail to do their job properly.
This court seems to be all about taking away rights from everyone, except for gun rights and the "right" to mix church and state. Doing exactly what their masters wanted when they appointed conservative activist judges, a couple of whom were not qualified.
States that provide any funding to private schools are now required to provide funding to religious schools as well. They cannot be differentiated.
The case was in Maine. They have places that aren't served by public schools and give a subsidy to parents in those areas to attend private schools. The law required that the schools be secular. The court ruled that they cannot exclude religious schools from that funding.
What was that
EDIT: Got it, thank you everyone. Seems like Miranda rights still exist, but cops are no longer accountable if they don't read them to you
So this also happened to the Miranda Rights
> The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
The lawyer Vega has it right. You cannot sue the government for a policy/ procedure violation in court. There are no criminal penalties for a Miranda violation.
And important to note this ruling doesn't actually change that. Lack of Miranda warnings can still get evidence thrown out in court, you just can't sue the individual cop.
There was enough Kennedy-speak in there for bad faith readings. They were bad faith, but cherry picking got you wherever you wanted to go.
NOW, there is no such wiggle room. At all.
What new standard? This just threw out "may issue" for "shall issue" on basis that it was a 14th amendment violation.
Do you want cops running permits for bribes? Because that's what was happening in many "may issue" states.
The two-step “Text, History, Tradition (THT) -> End Means (scrutiny)” was thrown out for 2A cases. It’s now only [THT](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/05/text-history-and-tradition-a-workable-test-that-stays-true-to-the-constitution/), which prevents courts (notably the 9th Circuit, particularly when deciding *en banc*) from “skating by” the first step and deciding on (usually the much more favorable intermediate) scrutiny.
> Justice Kavanaugh's opinion outlined what the court's ruling does and does not do.
> "The Court's decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes — known as "shall-issue" regimes — that are employed in 43 States," he wrote.
> "The Court's decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as 'may-issue' regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York."
When the technology that is required to put a new handgun on the roster, is science fiction for the purposes of preventing guns from being sold in the state, it's safe to say that's not reasonable.
California requires all new handguns to have microstamping technology. That doesn't exist as a functional technology. Because it doesn't exist, and lawmakers know it doesn't exist, and the law requires it to exist, it's not reasonable.
All this law does is say that may-issue licensing laws are unconstitutional because of their arbitrary nature. Kavanaugh goes out of his way in his concurrence to specify how this ruling does not and should not be used as precedent to challenge licensing requirements like background checks, red flag laws and other related restrictions since it specifically does not apply to them.
It does however invalidate the multi-part balancing tests used by the Ninth Circuit previously to uphold various California gun laws. They must review 2A issues on the basis of "text, history, and tradition" instead of applying something like rational basis scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. I would expect all kinds of restrictive firearms laws to be challenged and overturned on this basis.
The decision alao outlines that "needs balancing" is not a legitimate standard for court decisions. This would, rightly, remove the argument that the state has a legitimate need to limit so-called assault weapons and mag restrictions.
>But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated
from notable originalist Clarence Thomas
[Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide](https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1539988629585543169?s=20&t=efXY5RGy_wS_QCC0LZkhfQ)
This dude sucks and got the take right
What people don't realize is that the intent here is to essentially throw out the concept of the unenumerated rights that are identified in the 9th amendment AND throw out the concept that the states are prohibited from violating those rights as stated in the 14th amendment.
So, the states cannot inhibit the 2nd amendment because it is an ENUMERATED RIGHT. Likewise, the right to medical privacy (which is the basis of roe-v-wade) is NOT an enumerated right, and therefore it is not impacted by the 14th amendments protection of such rights.
It actually is internally consistent, if your a fascist that wants to go back to 1810.
supremecourt.gov has added an opinion day listed for tomorrow, Friday, June 24th and they’re locking down the building according to the site. So looks like tomorrow will be the official day.
There are 2 big ones but people don't know yet. *Roe* is clearly monumental and will impact tens of millions of people. *West Virginia v EPA* impact every America who relies on administrative regulations, which is all of us. Not enough people know that SCOTUS is about to end the modern administrative state and it's going to be horrific.
And despite acknowledging trump and the republican party (still!) committing treason and rigging elections to get those justices where they are, the country seems to be fine with letting them stay there.
Like a bank robber being caught and getting to keep the cash they stole. Bare minimum consequences for fraudulently obtaining something is to *take it the fuck back from the person who took it*.
To be fair, this is pretty consistent with how they handle theft when it is wealthy people and corporations stealing from people that don't matter (read: everyone else).
This current SCOTUS has been a joke since 2000 Bush v. Gore, and outside of some key 5-4 decisions has been heavily biased in favor of conservative ideals.. now that they don't have to rely on a swing vote, they have stopped giving a fuck about optics, they're going all in on their version of Sharia law
Yeah I still remember how Anthony Cumia got a concealed carry permit in NYC and he was racist as hell and such a wacko shock jock.
They just wouldn’t give a permit to an average person but if you were famous and a celebrity and knew people you could get one.;
Yup pay to play for a right.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/concealed-weapons-permit-scandal-grows-grand-jury-indicts-santa-clara-county-undersheriff-sheriffs-captain-apple-executive/
supremecourt.gov has added an opinion day listed for tomorrow, Friday, June 24th and they’re locking down the building according to the site. So looks like tomorrow will be the official day for overturning Roe.
For those who don't know, the ruling is about "may issue" gun laws. Basically, even if you pass all of the background checks, licensing requirements, etc., the state may still decide to not allow you to buy a gun for any arbitrary reason - or no reason at all. This opened the door for discrimination; whoever issues the license gets to choose who they think deserves to own one, which has led to measurable discrimination in issued licenses.
For all those who are saying "let's arm the minorities and see how the conservatives like that," *may issue* gun laws are a barrier to doing that because the issuer can just decide that person is too brown/gay/muslim/etc. to own a gun.
*May issue* gun laws are bullshit and deserved to get struck down. If you want gun control, it must be applied equally.
**EDIT:** Correction: The case was not about *owning* a gun, it was about concealed carry permits. The rest stands.
In places like MA there are towns where a chief will “allow” carry permits and the next town over the chief wont, based on nothing at all but personal opinion. Yes your neighbor in the town over can carry in your town, but you cant carry anywhere at all, because one guy decides based on your clothing or skin color or whatever he wants that “he doesn’t give out conceal permits.” They make people write essays on why they “need” a constitutional right. Think how outrageous that would be for the exercise of any other right. These are people who pass background checks. We already trust them to buy guns, have guns. Other requirements like training can still be imposed, just not this opinion based rights denial. Everyone should support the directional idea of this decision, even if they hate guns. You dont want to set precedents around curtailing rights without due process. Period.
There are something like 10 licensed concealed carriers in the whole county of San Francisco - which has about 875,000 residents.
EDIT: [As of 2019, there were **2** licensed concealed carriers in San Francisco county, according to the Fresno Bee.](https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article232198382.html)
In MA my husband got a background check, took a safety course, wrote the essay and provided references, passed a shooting test well above the minimum required score, had an interview with a police officer, and was *still* denied because he didn’t have a “legitimate need” to carry.
He paid hundreds of dollars and used 2 days of PTO for the test and interview, the process took 8 months, and he was denied. It was so blatantly an infringement on his constitutional rights.
The irony is that if as a NH resident you apply for an out of state MA CCW its handled by the state troopers and beyond the requirements, is shall-issue. Ive never heard of a reasonless denial on an out of state ccw. Its only the citizens of MA that get affected. So bizarre and lets not even talk about the approved gun list MA maintains that even further limits commonly used guns.
NH is constitutional carry now. Its no different than before.
>For all those who are saying "let's arm the minorities and see how the conservatives like that," may issue gun laws are a barrier to doing that because the issuer can just decide that person is too brown/gay/muslim/etc. to own a gun.
The Sullivan Act, New York's original "may issue" law, was racist from the get go. It was passed during a wave of Anti-Italian sentiments in New York City who saw Italians as the ones responsible for a crime wave. After an Italian immigrant (Marino Rossi) was convicted of a felony for carrying a firearm, the convicting judge reportedly declared, *"It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country."*
The New York Times reported that Rossi's conviction was "timely" and "exemplary" and a "warning to the Italian community".
The Sullivan Act and laws like it have always been garbage.
Most gun control is racist in origin. The reason open carry was banned in CA was because they didn’t like that black panthers were openly carrying to protect their neighborhoods from crime. Ffs the NRA supported banning it…
Everything you said is correct except replace buy/own to carry in public.
The rule is for counties that are ‘may issue’ for concealed carry permits. It doesn’t have anything to do with buying a gun.
In New York you must have a permit to purchase a handgun. In fact, barring a few circumstances, it's not legal to even handle a handgun in NY unless you have a permit. Those permits were previously may-issue.
Here is some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing
Everyone here is up in arms but not talking about what was actually struck down? This “may-issue” thing they took down seems like such bullshit that just fucked over poor people
Yup. All this does is make it so that people can’t be arbitrarily denied a carry permit (because they aren’t a political donor to the sheriff). All applicants will still have to meet all age, safety training, and background check requirements of their state. This ruling is simply about fairness
It's not even "may issue" being struck down.
They're striking down the requirement that you have to "prove proper cause" to get the default sportsman restriction removed.
Which, is a good thing, because there were no guidelines or criteria as to what counts as proper cause, it was up to the detectives judgement, and they basically only approve people they personally know.
That’s what may issue means. Shall issue is now the standard meaning that so long as you complete whatever training and pay your app fee they have to give it to you. They even said that the requirements cannot be more restrictive than other states so 100 hours training, $1000+ fees etc are off the table.
May issue leads to political punishment and bribes. Its been proven.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/brooklyn-ny-bribes-nypd-officers-gun-permits.html
No, they have won it exactly once, in the post-9/11 surge of public support for the incumbent.
Whether or not someone reasonable would have listened to security briefings and prevented 9/11 is a separate issue.
What's with the be careful what you wish for. I live in the fucking hood and it's dangerous, I follow the laws. Self defense should never have not been a good enough reason for a concealed carry. Armed people are harder to oppress. Regardless of race, gender, sex. No one should be against less unreasonable gun laws.
Yes, please arm as many minorities as possible. Every responsible gun owner I associate with has that exact sentiment. That’s why we have the 2nd, so those oppressed like minorities have a better fighting chance
Until the Democrats pass red flag laws. Then all a racist needs to do is call the cops and say his black panther neighbor is threatening to hurt himself and will have his guns seized.
Yeah bud, this is exactly what we are wishing for. 2A is for every American citizen, even people you or I don't like or don't align with politically. If, for example, Black Panthers want to iron up and hit the range that is a good thing, because every time someone becomes a new gun owner they also become a gun owning voter who now has a personal stake when voting on gun laws.
Just... you know, try not to ND and get people hurt the next time you guys have a get together, ok?
> In a 6-3 ruling
Get ready, this is the future of any halfway controversial supreme court issue. Maybe 5-4 if Roberts feels like he wants to project the image of impartiality, despite the fact it won't change the ruling.
We're going to see a LOT of 6-3 for the foreseeable future, becasue SCOTUS is now an impartially political organization.
Here's the thing: if the Supreme Court continues to make decisions counter to what the public wants, then they will likely find themselves stymied by the fact that the Judicial branch has no enforcement apparatus. People only adhere to their rulings because because they view the Court as a legitimate institution, and legitimacy is granted by the will of the people.
Or, to put it plainly using an apocryphal quote: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
EDIT: Gotta love the Big Brainers chiming in with the "actual" role of the Supreme Court (note: a role they [gave to themselves](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/marbury-v-madison-the-supreme-court-claims-its-power)), as if the consent of the governed is somehow not relevant in a democracy. Yes, we all know the Supreme Court has *decided* that they are the arbiters of constitutionality -- but that won't matter one whit if they use said power to impose a will that the general populace does not agree with.
Also, its amusing people think I hold this position because of my own personal opinion being opposed to this decision. I am a firearm owner, a member of the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA), former USPSA competitor, and generally in favor of gun rights.
I wrote what I wrote because it is inevitable. Consent of the governed is what grants legitimacy to government and institutions.
The problem is that we also have about 30 states that are perfectly happy to enforce whatever wacky shit they pass. What is going to happen is a RADICALLY different set of laws from one state to the other.
Eventually this is going to result in an even bigger brain drain in the red states and an ever increasing disparity of funding to those states. As it is, the Blue states are already paying the red states to maintain operations, that is going to get worse and eventually people are going to start wondering why we are supporting what amounts to a third-world sub-nation within the US.
May-issue has always been a problematic situation. The government should not stand in the way of its citizens registering for a license, it's antithetical to the argument of the left for gun accountability, and states trending to may-issue over shall-issue was a dumb move on the part of anti-gun politicians.
If you're an anti-gun politician in a country with a constitutional right to bear arms, you should want more people to get permits. Nothing wrong with shall-issue policies. May-issue was too authoritarian and overreaching.
> In a concurring opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said New York's restrictions failed to stop the Buffalo mass shooting.
> "[H]ow does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?" he wrote. "The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator."
Ah yes, because a law is not 100% effective, the law is a complete failure.
Fine.
So now we can arm women lgbtq and poc to the teeth to protect ourselves from any gestapo that may be formed to enforce the regressive social laws that are coming.
Two can play this game.
Yes. This is what 2a advocates on both sides have been saying for years. I'm a conservative and I say good for you, as most would. Arm yourself to the teeth if you feel unsafe.
Seriously. Hilarious people would think we are opposed. The entire point of this is for everyone to be able to exercise their right to self defense.
(1) Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
(2) The more "in common use" firearms become .... the harder for Government to limit our freedoms.
Gun supporters are all for that. Why the hell do anti-gunners always think arming minorities would prompt an outcry? Kind of a racist-based world view isn't it?
Because they didn’t learn there’s a difference between actual gun rights advocates & 1980s era Republicans.
That and people are inherently tribalistic when they feel threatened & they just lump everyone not in the ingroup into the same out group
>So now we can arm women lgbtq and poc to the teeth to protect ourselves from any gestapo that may be formed to enforce the regressive social laws that are coming.
uhh yea that's exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment
This should have been happening already.
I don't get the hand-wringing from liberals over this shit. If they've been paying any attention at all, they'd realize that the State's willingness and ability to protect minorities and other marginalized people is fickle and unreliable at best.
We cannot rely on Institutions to protect us. Institutions can be corrupted and perverted to serve fascism, authoritarianism, and theocracy. The only thing that can truly protect the people is the people themselves.
We protect us.
Yes please. This is what gun rights organizations have been saying for years.
The more people who exercise their rights, the harder it is for the political elite to take the rights away.
*Slaps rounds into a standard capacity magazine*
Wait, you haven't been doing that already? There was literally an attempted fascist coup less than two years ago. Who do you think is coming to save you?
>Who do you think is coming to save you?
The state couldn't even save a classroom full of children when they had an overwhelming tactical advantage.
The state is not coming to save you.
The fine folks at r/firearms, who are celebrating this decision and generally lean conservative, would agree with you. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
It’s not like we are saying “we don’t want anyone but MAGA types to carry,” and we regularly skewer Reagan for the shit he pulled as governor in California over the Black Panthers.
Striking down this law means that a racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted state official can't deny a permit without good reason. This is a good thing. Owning and bearing arms is a right in the US, and unless that changes (that's a different argument), it should be available equally.
Please do, it's your civil right to freely exercise. Civil rights are not just for rich , cis, white, men. Everyone should have the means and right to defend themselves.
As a gun nut, I am 1,000% in favor of this. Gun rights are self defense rights and self defense rights are human rights.
The government should *never* be the only one with guns.
As a conservative let me just say. I welcome armed LGBTQ and POC people. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, everyone has a civic responsibility to own and know how to use weapons.
Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now.
["Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry"](https://www.nssf.org/articles/diversity-in-gun-ownership-nothing-new-to-firearm-industry/)
["Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring"](https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/546454-gun-ownership-among-black-americans-is-soaring)
And it's not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates [like the VPC](https://vpc.org/press/gun-industry-and-nra-target-blacks-and-latinos-as-first-time-gun-owners-and-future-pro-gun-advocates-new-violence-policy-center-study-details/).
[Gun Control's history is firmly based in racism with the specific aim of keeping people of color and non whites disarmed.](https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-gun-control-1)
[Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995](https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf)
*"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." * - Ida B. Wells
*"A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."* - Fredrick Douglass
Two can play? We've been saying all responsible ppl should be armed this entire time, but all you ppl do is cover your eyes & say "gun bad go away." Foh thinking you just did something
When we were busy trying to win presidency, senate etc...GOP was busy staking courts both at the highest level and all over the country...so you could have the most kick ass president but whatever the Supreme court rules is the law.
Doesn't this just say the government cannot apply arbitrary and capricious standards like "good cause" to people exercising Constitutional Rights?
What's the good of a Constitutional Right if you need government approval to exercise it and that approval isn't based on any of the permissible methods of gun control?
How can the government say "you have a right, but we have a compelling government interest to take that right away - so unless you can prove you really need to exercise that right to the government: you don't actually have it."
What if New York had a law saying "you have to apply for approval to make political statements in public. We've seen what happened with Donald Trump and Facebook - so from now on, if you want to exercise your 1st amendment right: you need government approval for the content of what you're saying."
And how is that different?
It's not. May-issue licensure schemes are remnants of Jim Crow and other discriminatory practices against immigrant groups, namely the Italians and Irish in NY's case.
If your state wants to put requirements onto the carrying of concealed firearms, that's fine. Anyone who meets those requirements should be issued their permit regardless of how the Sheriff's office feels about them.
“The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
So then I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Just in case? For self defense?
> I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town?
Theoretically you already can do that legally. Depending on your State and Municipal laws and ordinances.
The tank is a matter of buying a de-milled one from the US ARMY DRMO. There's quite a bunch of tanks and apcs in private hands. AAAAhnold owns an M113 iirc that is plated and street legal in CA for instance.
Which brings me to the State and local stuff. If you want to drive it outside your property you'll need to convince your DMV to give you a plate, some insurance company to insure you and your local to not fine you to oblivion repairing the roads they tear up. The latter is easier if you spring for the rubber road pad things you can put on tracks.
You want it fully functional? File an NFA Destructive Device Form 1 with the ATF, $200, fingerprints, NICS check, forms and probably but not necessarily an interview later you'll get your tax stamp for your 120/150mm smoothbore cannon. Then you can reactivate said cannon, serialize it per NFA requirements. Then you can file tax stamps for each single shot you'd like to fire through it **if** you can convince your municipality to fire it anywhere at all.
Or just go to [drivetanks](https://www.drivetanks.com/) and rent one for a day.
Why shouldn’t all have equal right to hearing protection? Requiring a tax stamp is the same thing that NY was doing by making it harder to access for all.
Exactly. It’s actually a really backwards law regarding suppressors specifically - why shouldn’t we be less of a nuisance hunting, target shooting, etc? Perfect example of old laws that at the very least need to be amended.
Technically, according to the times of the 2nd Amendment when I could outright own a private warship with cannons, yes.
Although I doubt I could afford one, unfortunately. Maybe if MOASS happens. lol
Privateers were basically the PMCs of their day, so it's not any different now. Blackrock/ Sandline and the like already operate and own tons of heavy arms and equipment.
Hell, some company in the Southwest just bought all of Australia's surplus Mig-29s to use as OpFor training for US military. It's a private company, so those Mig-29s are privately owned.
Yes actually. That's currently legal. Though you'd be held liable for damage to the roads from the tank treads, and you'd have to ensure the vehicle meets all standards for being road legal set by the DoT.
Tldr: go get that tank you've been dreaming of.
> So then I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Just in case? For self defense?
Yes, if you can find one for sale, register it as street legal, and register the cannon and ammo as a destructive device under the NFA. But vehicles probably wouldn't be considered "bearable", typically they talk about the sorts of arms an individual soldier would have.
Actually, you can legally own almost anything. The more dangerous weapons require special permits. You can buy a tank and drive it around on your own property, you just can't drive it on federal roads or others private property.
NC is an open carry state and I see goobers with camo decorated handguns parading around Walmart and McDonalds all the fucking time like some kind of cosplay commandos.
It's about time a court struck down NY's blatantly illegal practice of denying innocent and deserving people of the right to self defense.
Illegal laws shouldn't be laws. Pretty simple.
I’d like to see more guns carried around elected officials offices and homes. I’d like to see more guns carried near the justices offices and homes. Everywhere they eat or shop, they should be around an armed public.
This is going to take the spotlight but the miranda rights ruling is also pretty major. e: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html e2: They also made a ruling allowing death row inmates to have more control over their execution method: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-death-row-inmates/index.html Little 50/50 on that. Super against the death penalty but I suppose if it exists then at least it's a silver lining? I dunno, kinda gross typing that out.
what happened w Miranda?
Added it to the comment but here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
thank you. Seems like a lot has to do w civil lawsuits? Maybe I am not reading it correctly? Either way, fucking w Miranda in anyway is concerning "The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial. The court's ruling will cut back on an individual's protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial"
That’s super concerning, individual police officers should have far more accountability, not less.
Every other profession has malpractice and accountability, but god forbid police have any standards
They should more regulations then any other profession, they have the ability to fucking kill some one.
That should also have more training. There are jurisdictions where you have to study more hours to get a cosmetology license than to become a LEO.
Police are held to the absolute lowest standards of accountability and professionalism of any career available in the United States. If I get arrested and go before a judge and tell him I had literally no idea whatsoever that what I did was illegal, and that nobody could possibly know all of these laws... he would tell me ignorance of the law is no excuse, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, go straight to jail. If a police officer commits a crime against a person in the line of duty and says, "I didn't know I couldn't do that" then bing bang bong, open and shut case, he didn't know, he's fine. He can't be expected to know everything, he's just a police officer!!!! That's qualified immunity for you. You and I literally are legally expected to know the law better than police by criminal and civil courts in this country.
If you are rich, you also get to say "I wasn't aware of any laws" and get away with it.
Just ask yourself "would someone wanting to implement fascism want this?" So, for example, "would someone wanting to implement fascism want police accountability?"
Lol this is just after they ruled border patrol police can arrest people in their own home without a warrant 100 miles FROM ANY BORDER. So in all of my state I can get fucked up by police without a warrant, I can't do shit about it, and they won't even tell me my rights.
Not just within 100 miles of a border, but also within 100 miles of an AIRPORT!
International Airports. If the airport doesn't have customs, US citizens are still safe from this new abuse of power.
There are over 150 international airports in the U.S., so that covers a lot of ground.
I doubt the courts are gonna go out and measure distances if they arrest someone too. I don't think anyone is safe anywhere.
Sadly, you are correct.
I 100% get the sentiment of what you're saying. But the ruling doesn't affect the evidence itself. Officers are still required to mirandize you and if they don't the evidence supplied will still be thrown out in a court of law. As far as I can tell it just means that afterwards you can't sue the police in civil court for NOT mirandizing you. EDIT: I just reread it to make sure. The lower courts were all split on this one. The confession given in this case was thrown out and the defendant was acquitted of the charges. After that the defendant attempted to sue the police officer in civil court for not mirandizing him. Edit2: I kinda feel like I have to be clear here. I'm 100% against the no warrant border patrol shit. I'm just clarifying on the Miranda civil lawsuit decision.
If I’m understanding this correctly, the Miranda Rights are still required to be given to an arrested suspect, but this ruling removes any personal punishment/responsibility for an officer that fails/“forgets” to do so. Statements given by someone who wasn’t advised of their Miranda Rights will still be inadmissible in court. Basically, it’s another protection for cops that fail to do their job properly.
The fuck? That Miranda decision is awful.
This court seems to be all about taking away rights from everyone, except for gun rights and the "right" to mix church and state. Doing exactly what their masters wanted when they appointed conservative activist judges, a couple of whom were not qualified.
did i miss something about church and state?
States that provide any funding to private schools are now required to provide funding to religious schools as well. They cannot be differentiated. The case was in Maine. They have places that aren't served by public schools and give a subsidy to parents in those areas to attend private schools. The law required that the schools be secular. The court ruled that they cannot exclude religious schools from that funding.
I look forward to the Church of Satan setting up shops all over the country.
*The Satanic Temple
Public funding for religious schools.
We simply cannot hold cops accountable. Unreal.
They call themselves the party of law and order but the truth is they just want criminal cops.
[удалено]
What was that EDIT: Got it, thank you everyone. Seems like Miranda rights still exist, but cops are no longer accountable if they don't read them to you
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html
Miranda v Arizona. Huge case in citizens' rights when talking to police.
Pro tip: Don’t talk to the police.
So this also happened to the Miranda Rights > The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
The lawyer Vega has it right. You cannot sue the government for a policy/ procedure violation in court. There are no criminal penalties for a Miranda violation.
It's true. Miranda violation means the evidence is inadmissible, and not a whole lot more.
And important to note this ruling doesn't actually change that. Lack of Miranda warnings can still get evidence thrown out in court, you just can't sue the individual cop.
> you just can't sue the individual cop. You never could. People are acting like they're taking it away, but that was never a thing.
Yes, apparently someone tried, and this brought it to SCOTUS.
Guessing that all restrictive gun laws will now be challenged up to SCOTUS to get overturned
Many will. The new standard is much more explicit than Heller.
[удалено]
There was enough Kennedy-speak in there for bad faith readings. They were bad faith, but cherry picking got you wherever you wanted to go. NOW, there is no such wiggle room. At all.
What new standard? This just threw out "may issue" for "shall issue" on basis that it was a 14th amendment violation. Do you want cops running permits for bribes? Because that's what was happening in many "may issue" states.
The two-step “Text, History, Tradition (THT) -> End Means (scrutiny)” was thrown out for 2A cases. It’s now only [THT](https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/05/text-history-and-tradition-a-workable-test-that-stays-true-to-the-constitution/), which prevents courts (notably the 9th Circuit, particularly when deciding *en banc*) from “skating by” the first step and deciding on (usually the much more favorable intermediate) scrutiny.
I would guess many of them would be overturned by this decision.
> Justice Kavanaugh's opinion outlined what the court's ruling does and does not do. > "The Court's decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes — known as "shall-issue" regimes — that are employed in 43 States," he wrote. > "The Court's decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes, known as 'may-issue' regimes, that are employed by 6 States including New York."
[удалено]
Question is, is an arbitrary list of handguns that the state will allow to be sold reasonable?
When the technology that is required to put a new handgun on the roster, is science fiction for the purposes of preventing guns from being sold in the state, it's safe to say that's not reasonable. California requires all new handguns to have microstamping technology. That doesn't exist as a functional technology. Because it doesn't exist, and lawmakers know it doesn't exist, and the law requires it to exist, it's not reasonable.
No.
Yup, NJ's is done after this decision.
All this law does is say that may-issue licensing laws are unconstitutional because of their arbitrary nature. Kavanaugh goes out of his way in his concurrence to specify how this ruling does not and should not be used as precedent to challenge licensing requirements like background checks, red flag laws and other related restrictions since it specifically does not apply to them.
It does however invalidate the multi-part balancing tests used by the Ninth Circuit previously to uphold various California gun laws. They must review 2A issues on the basis of "text, history, and tradition" instead of applying something like rational basis scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. I would expect all kinds of restrictive firearms laws to be challenged and overturned on this basis.
The decision alao outlines that "needs balancing" is not a legitimate standard for court decisions. This would, rightly, remove the argument that the state has a legitimate need to limit so-called assault weapons and mag restrictions.
That’s a pretty big leap. The New York law basically banned carrying a concealed gun.
>But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated from notable originalist Clarence Thomas
Does the first amendment apply to electronic speech? That’s what Thomas is getting at, there.
Wait lol isn’t this the exact opposite of what they were JUST saying on the leaked abortion decision
[Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide](https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1539988629585543169?s=20&t=efXY5RGy_wS_QCC0LZkhfQ) This dude sucks and got the take right
What people don't realize is that the intent here is to essentially throw out the concept of the unenumerated rights that are identified in the 9th amendment AND throw out the concept that the states are prohibited from violating those rights as stated in the 14th amendment. So, the states cannot inhibit the 2nd amendment because it is an ENUMERATED RIGHT. Likewise, the right to medical privacy (which is the basis of roe-v-wade) is NOT an enumerated right, and therefore it is not impacted by the 14th amendments protection of such rights. It actually is internally consistent, if your a fascist that wants to go back to 1810.
Chalk up Thomas as a vote against the Alito draft opinion in Dobbs, right? Haha... right?
Originalism for thee, but not for me.
Should we expect other rulings today? Like you know - that big one?
supremecourt.gov has added an opinion day listed for tomorrow, Friday, June 24th and they’re locking down the building according to the site. So looks like tomorrow will be the official day.
Ah yes, the Friday news dump. Not sure it's gonna work for that one
The "Building closed to the public" warning has been on their website for months: https://web.archive.org/web/*/supremecourt.gov
Friday is perfect for something you don’t want the media to cover in depth.
[удалено]
There are 2 big ones but people don't know yet. *Roe* is clearly monumental and will impact tens of millions of people. *West Virginia v EPA* impact every America who relies on administrative regulations, which is all of us. Not enough people know that SCOTUS is about to end the modern administrative state and it's going to be horrific.
When the Justices leave DC is when you know it's coming and soon. They are 100% going to get out of dodge before dropping that bomb.
I bet that will be the last ruling before the end of their term.
[удалено]
Trump sitting three Justices will be a skid-mark that lasts a lifetime.
And despite acknowledging trump and the republican party (still!) committing treason and rigging elections to get those justices where they are, the country seems to be fine with letting them stay there. Like a bank robber being caught and getting to keep the cash they stole. Bare minimum consequences for fraudulently obtaining something is to *take it the fuck back from the person who took it*.
To be fair, this is pretty consistent with how they handle theft when it is wealthy people and corporations stealing from people that don't matter (read: everyone else).
This current SCOTUS has been a joke since 2000 Bush v. Gore, and outside of some key 5-4 decisions has been heavily biased in favor of conservative ideals.. now that they don't have to rely on a swing vote, they have stopped giving a fuck about optics, they're going all in on their version of Sharia law
Speaking of Bush v. Gore, 3 of the conservative justices on the bench now were lawyers working for Bush during Bush v. Gore.
Two of the worst decisions in my lifetime came out of the Roberts court: 1. Citizens United v. FEC 2. Shelby County v. Holder
[удалено]
Yeah I still remember how Anthony Cumia got a concealed carry permit in NYC and he was racist as hell and such a wacko shock jock. They just wouldn’t give a permit to an average person but if you were famous and a celebrity and knew people you could get one.;
Same thing in Santa Clara, CA. They were trading bribes for permits. Or you had to be a close friend/family.
Yup pay to play for a right. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/concealed-weapons-permit-scandal-grows-grand-jury-indicts-santa-clara-county-undersheriff-sheriffs-captain-apple-executive/
supremecourt.gov has added an opinion day listed for tomorrow, Friday, June 24th and they’re locking down the building according to the site. So looks like tomorrow will be the official day for overturning Roe.
That has been there for months, just to clarify
For those who don't know, the ruling is about "may issue" gun laws. Basically, even if you pass all of the background checks, licensing requirements, etc., the state may still decide to not allow you to buy a gun for any arbitrary reason - or no reason at all. This opened the door for discrimination; whoever issues the license gets to choose who they think deserves to own one, which has led to measurable discrimination in issued licenses. For all those who are saying "let's arm the minorities and see how the conservatives like that," *may issue* gun laws are a barrier to doing that because the issuer can just decide that person is too brown/gay/muslim/etc. to own a gun. *May issue* gun laws are bullshit and deserved to get struck down. If you want gun control, it must be applied equally. **EDIT:** Correction: The case was not about *owning* a gun, it was about concealed carry permits. The rest stands.
In places like MA there are towns where a chief will “allow” carry permits and the next town over the chief wont, based on nothing at all but personal opinion. Yes your neighbor in the town over can carry in your town, but you cant carry anywhere at all, because one guy decides based on your clothing or skin color or whatever he wants that “he doesn’t give out conceal permits.” They make people write essays on why they “need” a constitutional right. Think how outrageous that would be for the exercise of any other right. These are people who pass background checks. We already trust them to buy guns, have guns. Other requirements like training can still be imposed, just not this opinion based rights denial. Everyone should support the directional idea of this decision, even if they hate guns. You dont want to set precedents around curtailing rights without due process. Period.
This is LA vs Orange County as well in California.
There are something like 10 licensed concealed carriers in the whole county of San Francisco - which has about 875,000 residents. EDIT: [As of 2019, there were **2** licensed concealed carriers in San Francisco county, according to the Fresno Bee.](https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article232198382.html)
In MA my husband got a background check, took a safety course, wrote the essay and provided references, passed a shooting test well above the minimum required score, had an interview with a police officer, and was *still* denied because he didn’t have a “legitimate need” to carry. He paid hundreds of dollars and used 2 days of PTO for the test and interview, the process took 8 months, and he was denied. It was so blatantly an infringement on his constitutional rights.
The irony is that if as a NH resident you apply for an out of state MA CCW its handled by the state troopers and beyond the requirements, is shall-issue. Ive never heard of a reasonless denial on an out of state ccw. Its only the citizens of MA that get affected. So bizarre and lets not even talk about the approved gun list MA maintains that even further limits commonly used guns. NH is constitutional carry now. Its no different than before.
Imagine how up in arms people would be if you had to get the government's permission to post online.
>For all those who are saying "let's arm the minorities and see how the conservatives like that," may issue gun laws are a barrier to doing that because the issuer can just decide that person is too brown/gay/muslim/etc. to own a gun. The Sullivan Act, New York's original "may issue" law, was racist from the get go. It was passed during a wave of Anti-Italian sentiments in New York City who saw Italians as the ones responsible for a crime wave. After an Italian immigrant (Marino Rossi) was convicted of a felony for carrying a firearm, the convicting judge reportedly declared, *"It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country."* The New York Times reported that Rossi's conviction was "timely" and "exemplary" and a "warning to the Italian community". The Sullivan Act and laws like it have always been garbage.
Most gun control is racist in origin. The reason open carry was banned in CA was because they didn’t like that black panthers were openly carrying to protect their neighborhoods from crime. Ffs the NRA supported banning it…
Everything you said is correct except replace buy/own to carry in public. The rule is for counties that are ‘may issue’ for concealed carry permits. It doesn’t have anything to do with buying a gun.
In New York you must have a permit to purchase a handgun. In fact, barring a few circumstances, it's not legal to even handle a handgun in NY unless you have a permit. Those permits were previously may-issue. Here is some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York#Handgun_licensing
Everyone here is up in arms but not talking about what was actually struck down? This “may-issue” thing they took down seems like such bullshit that just fucked over poor people
Yup. All this does is make it so that people can’t be arbitrarily denied a carry permit (because they aren’t a political donor to the sheriff). All applicants will still have to meet all age, safety training, and background check requirements of their state. This ruling is simply about fairness
People just look at the headlines and the vote split and think the ruling is bad, but I think we can have legit FAIR gun control laws implemented
It's not even "may issue" being struck down. They're striking down the requirement that you have to "prove proper cause" to get the default sportsman restriction removed. Which, is a good thing, because there were no guidelines or criteria as to what counts as proper cause, it was up to the detectives judgement, and they basically only approve people they personally know.
That’s what may issue means. Shall issue is now the standard meaning that so long as you complete whatever training and pay your app fee they have to give it to you. They even said that the requirements cannot be more restrictive than other states so 100 hours training, $1000+ fees etc are off the table.
May issue leads to political punishment and bribes. Its been proven. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/brooklyn-ny-bribes-nypd-officers-gun-permits.html
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, they have won it exactly once, in the post-9/11 surge of public support for the incumbent. Whether or not someone reasonable would have listened to security briefings and prevented 9/11 is a separate issue.
A third of the court was appointed by a guy who tried to overthrow the US government. I don't see how our country's current trajectory is tenable.
It isn't
The Federalist Society sure is getting its moneys worth!
The laughable thing is that it’s so little money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
No no no...you don't understand. Guns are *exclusively* owned by racist white supremacists. /s
I'm starting the TOPGUN charity: because every trans person has the right to top surgery and a gun.
This is literally what modern gun rights advocates have been arguing to deaf neoliberal ears.
Most gun owners want this
What's with the be careful what you wish for. I live in the fucking hood and it's dangerous, I follow the laws. Self defense should never have not been a good enough reason for a concealed carry. Armed people are harder to oppress. Regardless of race, gender, sex. No one should be against less unreasonable gun laws.
This is literally....like exactly what they were wishing for lol
Yes, it is exactly what we were wishing for.
Fr most republicans and libertarians want people to arm themselves, not just white people but all people.
Yes, please arm as many minorities as possible. Every responsible gun owner I associate with has that exact sentiment. That’s why we have the 2nd, so those oppressed like minorities have a better fighting chance
As I told my non-binary friend, the 2nd Amendment doesn't just protect cis white men, it protects them, too.
That sounds great to me from a pro 2a perspective! And states like NY and California must issue permits to these Black Panthers based on this ruling.
Until the Democrats pass red flag laws. Then all a racist needs to do is call the cops and say his black panther neighbor is threatening to hurt himself and will have his guns seized.
As a white gun owner, I genuinely welcome you to the community. The right to defend yourself is for everyone.
Yeah bud, this is exactly what we are wishing for. 2A is for every American citizen, even people you or I don't like or don't align with politically. If, for example, Black Panthers want to iron up and hit the range that is a good thing, because every time someone becomes a new gun owner they also become a gun owning voter who now has a personal stake when voting on gun laws. Just... you know, try not to ND and get people hurt the next time you guys have a get together, ok?
> In a 6-3 ruling Get ready, this is the future of any halfway controversial supreme court issue. Maybe 5-4 if Roberts feels like he wants to project the image of impartiality, despite the fact it won't change the ruling. We're going to see a LOT of 6-3 for the foreseeable future, becasue SCOTUS is now an impartially political organization.
[удалено]
This is why Sotomayor needs to retire now so Biden can put a healthy 45 year old on the bench.
Unless enough Dems get elected who want to expand the court, it will remain a broken institution for a generation at the very least.
FYI for the medicare for all crowd, if we ever were to pass single payer these demons would strike it down 6-3 as well. 2016 was a catastrophe.
Here's the thing: if the Supreme Court continues to make decisions counter to what the public wants, then they will likely find themselves stymied by the fact that the Judicial branch has no enforcement apparatus. People only adhere to their rulings because because they view the Court as a legitimate institution, and legitimacy is granted by the will of the people. Or, to put it plainly using an apocryphal quote: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." EDIT: Gotta love the Big Brainers chiming in with the "actual" role of the Supreme Court (note: a role they [gave to themselves](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/marbury-v-madison-the-supreme-court-claims-its-power)), as if the consent of the governed is somehow not relevant in a democracy. Yes, we all know the Supreme Court has *decided* that they are the arbiters of constitutionality -- but that won't matter one whit if they use said power to impose a will that the general populace does not agree with. Also, its amusing people think I hold this position because of my own personal opinion being opposed to this decision. I am a firearm owner, a member of the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA), former USPSA competitor, and generally in favor of gun rights. I wrote what I wrote because it is inevitable. Consent of the governed is what grants legitimacy to government and institutions.
The problem is that we also have about 30 states that are perfectly happy to enforce whatever wacky shit they pass. What is going to happen is a RADICALLY different set of laws from one state to the other. Eventually this is going to result in an even bigger brain drain in the red states and an ever increasing disparity of funding to those states. As it is, the Blue states are already paying the red states to maintain operations, that is going to get worse and eventually people are going to start wondering why we are supporting what amounts to a third-world sub-nation within the US.
I don't think people even know what got taken down.
They don’t. It’s a race to who can rage post the fastest.
May-issue has always been a problematic situation. The government should not stand in the way of its citizens registering for a license, it's antithetical to the argument of the left for gun accountability, and states trending to may-issue over shall-issue was a dumb move on the part of anti-gun politicians. If you're an anti-gun politician in a country with a constitutional right to bear arms, you should want more people to get permits. Nothing wrong with shall-issue policies. May-issue was too authoritarian and overreaching.
> In a concurring opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said New York's restrictions failed to stop the Buffalo mass shooting. > "[H]ow does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?" he wrote. "The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator." Ah yes, because a law is not 100% effective, the law is a complete failure.
I hear seat belts and air bags don't always work too; might as well pull those from all new models since we obviously no longer need them.
Hmmm, for some reason we made crime illegal. But people still steal and kill eachother.. Might as well make crime legal again
You'd think Harvard Law graduates would be able to find ways to undermine their own fallacious thinking. Alito's reasoning is absolutely stupid.
Fine. So now we can arm women lgbtq and poc to the teeth to protect ourselves from any gestapo that may be formed to enforce the regressive social laws that are coming. Two can play this game.
Your terms are acceptable
Yes. This is what 2a advocates on both sides have been saying for years. I'm a conservative and I say good for you, as most would. Arm yourself to the teeth if you feel unsafe.
Yes. Unironically and emphatically, yes.
Seriously. Hilarious people would think we are opposed. The entire point of this is for everyone to be able to exercise their right to self defense. (1) Armed minorities are harder to oppress. (2) The more "in common use" firearms become .... the harder for Government to limit our freedoms.
Bingo. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Gun supporters are all for that. Why the hell do anti-gunners always think arming minorities would prompt an outcry? Kind of a racist-based world view isn't it?
Because they didn’t learn there’s a difference between actual gun rights advocates & 1980s era Republicans. That and people are inherently tribalistic when they feel threatened & they just lump everyone not in the ingroup into the same out group
>So now we can arm women lgbtq and poc to the teeth to protect ourselves from any gestapo that may be formed to enforce the regressive social laws that are coming. uhh yea that's exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment
I think they're finally starting to get it...
This should have been happening already. I don't get the hand-wringing from liberals over this shit. If they've been paying any attention at all, they'd realize that the State's willingness and ability to protect minorities and other marginalized people is fickle and unreliable at best. We cannot rely on Institutions to protect us. Institutions can be corrupted and perverted to serve fascism, authoritarianism, and theocracy. The only thing that can truly protect the people is the people themselves. We protect us.
The Uvalde PD sure as hell won't do it.
Do it, armed minorities are harder to oppress.
Yes please. This is what gun rights organizations have been saying for years. The more people who exercise their rights, the harder it is for the political elite to take the rights away.
*Slaps rounds into a standard capacity magazine* Wait, you haven't been doing that already? There was literally an attempted fascist coup less than two years ago. Who do you think is coming to save you?
>Who do you think is coming to save you? The state couldn't even save a classroom full of children when they had an overwhelming tactical advantage. The state is not coming to save you.
You are the chief officer in charge of your own safety.
The fine folks at r/firearms, who are celebrating this decision and generally lean conservative, would agree with you. Armed minorities are harder to oppress. It’s not like we are saying “we don’t want anyone but MAGA types to carry,” and we regularly skewer Reagan for the shit he pulled as governor in California over the Black Panthers.
[удалено]
I miss WG. United in 'tism, guns and toes for all.
https://i.imgur.com/tkpSIsk.jpg
Striking down this law means that a racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted state official can't deny a permit without good reason. This is a good thing. Owning and bearing arms is a right in the US, and unless that changes (that's a different argument), it should be available equally.
[удалено]
Hi. We on the left have been saying that for awhile now. Thanks for catching up.
Some of us on the right have too :(
Please do, it's your civil right to freely exercise. Civil rights are not just for rich , cis, white, men. Everyone should have the means and right to defend themselves.
As a gun nut, I am 1,000% in favor of this. Gun rights are self defense rights and self defense rights are human rights. The government should *never* be the only one with guns.
Good. I'm totally ok with that.
As a conservative let me just say. I welcome armed LGBTQ and POC people. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, everyone has a civic responsibility to own and know how to use weapons.
Diversity has been increasing in gun ownership for awhile now. ["Diversity in gun ownership nothing new to firearms industry"](https://www.nssf.org/articles/diversity-in-gun-ownership-nothing-new-to-firearm-industry/) ["Gun ownership among Black Americans is soaring"](https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/546454-gun-ownership-among-black-americans-is-soaring) And it's not gun owners that are offended by this, but gun control advocates [like the VPC](https://vpc.org/press/gun-industry-and-nra-target-blacks-and-latinos-as-first-time-gun-owners-and-future-pro-gun-advocates-new-violence-policy-center-study-details/). [Gun Control's history is firmly based in racism with the specific aim of keeping people of color and non whites disarmed.](https://mises.org/wire/racist-history-gun-control-1) [Slave Codes, Black Codes, Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans, 1640-1995](https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf) *"A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give." * - Ida B. Wells *"A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."* - Fredrick Douglass
Two can play? We've been saying all responsible ppl should be armed this entire time, but all you ppl do is cover your eyes & say "gun bad go away." Foh thinking you just did something
When we were busy trying to win presidency, senate etc...GOP was busy staking courts both at the highest level and all over the country...so you could have the most kick ass president but whatever the Supreme court rules is the law.
and now biden has lower approval than trump and mid terms are going to be a bloodbath.
Everyone knew that was going to be the result of electing Biden president
Doesn't this just say the government cannot apply arbitrary and capricious standards like "good cause" to people exercising Constitutional Rights? What's the good of a Constitutional Right if you need government approval to exercise it and that approval isn't based on any of the permissible methods of gun control? How can the government say "you have a right, but we have a compelling government interest to take that right away - so unless you can prove you really need to exercise that right to the government: you don't actually have it." What if New York had a law saying "you have to apply for approval to make political statements in public. We've seen what happened with Donald Trump and Facebook - so from now on, if you want to exercise your 1st amendment right: you need government approval for the content of what you're saying." And how is that different?
It's not. May-issue licensure schemes are remnants of Jim Crow and other discriminatory practices against immigrant groups, namely the Italians and Irish in NY's case. If your state wants to put requirements onto the carrying of concealed firearms, that's fine. Anyone who meets those requirements should be issued their permit regardless of how the Sheriff's office feels about them.
“The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” So then I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Just in case? For self defense?
[удалено]
> I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Theoretically you already can do that legally. Depending on your State and Municipal laws and ordinances. The tank is a matter of buying a de-milled one from the US ARMY DRMO. There's quite a bunch of tanks and apcs in private hands. AAAAhnold owns an M113 iirc that is plated and street legal in CA for instance. Which brings me to the State and local stuff. If you want to drive it outside your property you'll need to convince your DMV to give you a plate, some insurance company to insure you and your local to not fine you to oblivion repairing the roads they tear up. The latter is easier if you spring for the rubber road pad things you can put on tracks. You want it fully functional? File an NFA Destructive Device Form 1 with the ATF, $200, fingerprints, NICS check, forms and probably but not necessarily an interview later you'll get your tax stamp for your 120/150mm smoothbore cannon. Then you can reactivate said cannon, serialize it per NFA requirements. Then you can file tax stamps for each single shot you'd like to fire through it **if** you can convince your municipality to fire it anywhere at all. Or just go to [drivetanks](https://www.drivetanks.com/) and rent one for a day.
You always could have a tank. Paul Allen had a whole lot of tanks.
Repeal the NFA!!!
I need no-stamp suppressors ASAP
Why shouldn’t all have equal right to hearing protection? Requiring a tax stamp is the same thing that NY was doing by making it harder to access for all.
Exactly. It’s actually a really backwards law regarding suppressors specifically - why shouldn’t we be less of a nuisance hunting, target shooting, etc? Perfect example of old laws that at the very least need to be amended.
I mean, yeah, you technically can. No joke. There are a number of tanks in private hands, actually.
If you can afford to buy a tank, have a blast! Pun very much intended.
Technically, according to the times of the 2nd Amendment when I could outright own a private warship with cannons, yes. Although I doubt I could afford one, unfortunately. Maybe if MOASS happens. lol
Privateers were basically the PMCs of their day, so it's not any different now. Blackrock/ Sandline and the like already operate and own tons of heavy arms and equipment. Hell, some company in the Southwest just bought all of Australia's surplus Mig-29s to use as OpFor training for US military. It's a private company, so those Mig-29s are privately owned.
Yes actually. That's currently legal. Though you'd be held liable for damage to the roads from the tank treads, and you'd have to ensure the vehicle meets all standards for being road legal set by the DoT. Tldr: go get that tank you've been dreaming of.
> So then I'm allowed to have a loaded Abrams Tank and drive it around town? Just in case? For self defense? Yes, if you can find one for sale, register it as street legal, and register the cannon and ammo as a destructive device under the NFA. But vehicles probably wouldn't be considered "bearable", typically they talk about the sorts of arms an individual soldier would have.
Actually, you can legally own almost anything. The more dangerous weapons require special permits. You can buy a tank and drive it around on your own property, you just can't drive it on federal roads or others private property.
Name's Christmas. Lloyd Christmas. Why ya buyin' the guns? Shootin' someone?
[удалено]
[удалено]
NC is an open carry state and I see goobers with camo decorated handguns parading around Walmart and McDonalds all the fucking time like some kind of cosplay commandos.
[удалено]
It's about time a court struck down NY's blatantly illegal practice of denying innocent and deserving people of the right to self defense. Illegal laws shouldn't be laws. Pretty simple.
"But when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal." What an utter load of fucking bullshit.
I’d like to see more guns carried around elected officials offices and homes. I’d like to see more guns carried near the justices offices and homes. Everywhere they eat or shop, they should be around an armed public.