Possibly. In either case what needs to be focused on is eliminating military style weapons and extended ammunition capacity first.
9 Likes
“Good cause” = pay a bribe or have the right connections. It had nothing to do with the actual situation. May-issue permits (for anything, not just guns) are a breeding ground for corruption.
3 Likes
The founding fathers never specifically mentioned carbon dioxide, but I’m sure it’s in keeping with their intent that people must be free to produce as much as they want.
Honestly not for white men either. They won’t specifically attack them the way they will everyone else, but if for instance it’s expedient for some company to trample on them, then that’s fine. Also, I suspect it might do well to remember that while Niemöller’s poem doesn’t start with people like himself, it still gets there.
10 Likes
Maybe, but they’ll take some restrictions, as long as it hurts the people they hate the most. Or doesn’t take away their precious, precious kill sticks.
8 Likes
The vote is 6-3
What a surprise!
10 Likes
Why is it classist if a blue collar body guard is allowed to carry and a white collar banker isn’t?
It’s common sense that only a select group of people who need a gun for their job gets issued a permit. It’s how most of the world does it.
3 Likes
I wish it was 5–4 —something that could change if something happens to one of the justices. 6–3 reflects entrenchment
Please. The GOP is pushing the States Rights line about other enumerated rights, such as multiple facets of the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, and 8A. Pull the other one.
In addition, the individual right to carry a firearm whererever you want is most certainly not enumerated in the 2A. Even Scalia wouldn’t have argued it as enumerated with a straight face.
It takes a special type of gun-wanker to point at cities with high firearm homicide rates due primarily to nonexistent regulation in adjacent states as an argument against gun regulation.
15 Likes
The white collar banker with enough connections will get the permit, though. If the law was written so that only cops or specific security personnel were allowed to carry, then we would be having a different conversation. But it is actually available to ANYONE if the powers that be deem them acceptable.
When you have arbitrary and ambiguous wording in your law, in practice, who do you think is getting these permits? Not the “working class”.
The police and security serve the upper class, corporate and government interests. They are marketed that they are serving the people. I am not sure I would consider them “working class”, as their existence is to keep the working class in line. YMMV.
1 Like
Disperse, in the name of the united fruit company!
1 Like
Actually, no. The impact in NY might not be huge but the way in which this law was overturned is going to have massive impacts on other gun control cases.
The previous standard for analyzing gun control laws is out the window and now replaced with a standard that will make it so much harder to control guns.
I really cannot emphasize this enough but bold will have to do
when SCOTUS makes a ruling the banquet of consequences does not end with the particular law at issue in the suit. EVER. How a case is decided is just as, and often more, important that what was decided.
Thursday’s ruling does change the way regulations are evaluated. Thomas’s opinion states regulations need to be historically consistent with the Second Amendment. That means when they look at a modern gun regulation, judges will have to figure out if another, reasonably similar law was passed earlier in the country’s history. Previously, courts had also considered whether a regulation could be justified for other reasons, but that second layer of consideration is no longer allowed.
What all of this means in practice, though, will have to be worked out by the lower courts, which means there will likely be a flood of new litigation over gun restrictions that could come right back to the Supreme Court.
16 Likes
What you are describing are problems with the implementation of the law, not the law itself.
Absolutely, but the law isn’t about police being allowed to carry, in fact I would not consider them eligible in their off hours.
4 Likes
But gun control is not one of them.
7 Likes
Well, previously politicians could look forward to being deposed by citizens exercising votes. With the evisceration of voting laws, life tenure, a privilege enjoyed only by the judiciary could be extended to other members of the political class.
The second amendment will take the place of electioneering as the principle means of enforcing liberty.
"Ma’am… unless he is actively shooting people, there’s nothing we can do… well, even then doubtful we would even show up… anyways, the gentleman in question has asked that you stop calling us to impede his God-given freedoms… otherwise we’ll arrest you for harassments "
But yeah… will get to the point where open-carry body armoured types are a regular sight on their streets and in their shops… tell me how that isn’t a form of intimidation. Be handled by police with all the urgency of a cat stuck in a tree.
6 Likes
Just, like, yesterday, they took “government funded religious schools” out of the “forbidden” category and put them in the “mandatory” category, in one ruling–no local discretion in between, they’re making all the decisions now
12 Likes
Future mass shooters will be grateful to open-carry fundamentalists who normalised the sight of people wandering around tooled up like special forces soldiers.
8 Likes
or maybe more back to a child’s understanding of mid-20th-century movies about the 19th century
13 Likes
The whole “law enforcement” / “private security” / “military contractor” community functions as a kind of separate world from “civilian” society
The weird protections and privileges that cops have that don’t apply to normal people are evidence that they constitute their own “class,” if not exactly in the Marxist sense of the word, even though—actually, especially because they’re not really required to protect anyone
Look how long it took to indict Ahmaud Arbery’s murderers, that was (because they were white, but also) because one of them was a former cop
7 Likes
Based on that headline I legitimately thought a nuke was involved
18 Likes
