U.S. Supreme Court Upholds the 2nd Amendment

"In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision upholding New York's 108-year-old law limiting who can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Proponents of the measure warned that a ruling from the high court invalidating it could threaten gun restrictions in several states and lead to more firearms on city streets.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and its licensing regime is unconstitutional."

I can understand the courts decision. One doesn't need to prove "proper cause" because it pre-exists everywhere now. The new law of the land is "strap on your six guns 'cause your gonna need 'em."
 

KeefeM20100421.jpg
 
I can't imagine how making it easier to own a gun is going to help protect the citizens. Doesn't it seem logical that giving people dangerous weapons at a time when we are so divided that the danger of being shot becomes more likely? We seem to believe that violence ( if strong enough ) will save the day. All I can see is that it is killing and wounding people all day long. What do we want? War or safety?
 
Gun and ammo sales have been rising over the past couple of years. This ruling should increase the sales even more. This might be a good time to invest in S&W, etc. I can visualize crowded gatherings, and even public transportation, where a minor argument occurs, and ends in a shooting. There are just too many lunatics in our society.
 
I think it is important not to lose any of our Constitutional rights, regardless of how popular or unpopular they are. If we don't like the law, start a petition to have the 2nd amendment changed. What it is it to make a change, 2/3's of Congress?
 
i feel too many make too much out of court rulings and rarely read the opinion or even what the case that made it to court was about...

Aunt Bea said:
The only thing that has changed is the justification for a concealed carry permit.
Click to expand...
yes, has nothing to do with buying guns...
It was a case from NY where self defense was not enough justification for a carry permit...... it never specified in what i read about NY law ....what was considered a valid reason in bureaucrats eyes. .... probably vague so people did not just fill out form for permit with the acceptable reason.

these folks already had a gun etc only needed a permit for concealed carry......
 
IKE said:
Quote, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

View attachment 226579
Click to expand...
Good point. It says "the right of the people" and not 'the right of individuals'. By "people" our Founding Fathers meant the state. It was a collective right for states to form militias so if the union was attacked, it could quickly form a military for defense. It wasn't a right of every individual to own a gun, which was an assumed right, since people needed guns to hunt and for protection from native Americans.
 
Jeni said:
i feel too many make too much out of court rulings and rarely read the opinion or even what the case that made it to court was about...


yes, has nothing to do with buying guns...
It was a case from NY where self defense was not enough justification for a carry permit...... it never specified in what i read about NY law ....what was considered a valid reason in bureaucrats eyes. .... probably vague so people did not just fill out form for permit with the acceptable reason.

these folks already had a gun etc only needed a permit for concealed carry......
Click to expand...
The proper justification was usually job related for people who transported valuable items, worked security, etc...

Still, if you had the proper connections a justification could usually be found, and that was always part of the problem that made this particular rule unfair.

Many New Yorkers with pistol permits carry guns in their vehicle if not on their person under the existing transport provision of the law. A person with a valid pistol permit is allowed to transport an unloaded gun legally if the person does not have access to it.

The question for the lawyers to hash over has always been what is meant by not having access. Does it mean locked in the trunk or glove compartment, in a locked case, a trigger lock, etc...

I've always thought it odd that New York generally forbids open carry while it has always made provisions for concealed carry permits.
 
Pepper said:
I agree. We may disagree as to how, but I agree with your sentiment.
Click to expand...
My wife and I were regular visitors to the US for many years, then one day in Memphis we came close to a fire arm killing, it was a most chilling experience. It wasn't a conscious decision at the time, to stay away. On the plane home my wife and I realised that throughout our lifetimes neither of us had ever seen a hand gun in our own country. Not on a police officer, security guard or any other circumstance. The experience of that shooting really spooked us. Much as we enjoyed our visits to the US, since that time, we have never been back.
 
Moon Rat said:
I think it is important not to lose any of our Constitutional rights, regardless of how popular or unpopular they are. If we don't like the law, start a petition to have the 2nd amendment changed. What it is it to make a change, 2/3's of Congress?
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that if Congress passes a law which could change the Bill of Rights, 2/3 rds of the states must ratify that law. As happened when the U.S. Congress outlawed liquor sales and once again when that law was abolished.
 
It is quite possible to make a valid argument both for, and against the 2nd Amendment.

On the one hand, it could be argued that the 2nd Amendment, "... the right of the people to KEEP and CARRY arms shall not be infringed", does indeed make the country safer from FOREIGN invasion, as well as from internal enemies. I could argue that from 1933 to 1945, if all Jews had been armed when Nazis came for them and those Jews were willing to kill any Nazi that tried to carry away his family, the holocaust would never have happened.

On the other hand, I get sick to my stomach hear about yet another mass murder in our nation's schools.

Some days I feel one way and a few days later I feel differently.

It is well known that there are more guns in America than there are people. So, even IF Congress , and the states outlawed the sale of guns, and ammunition, it would be a hundred years or more before we would see any decrease in murder with a gun.
Moreover, if we can not protect America from dangerous illegal drugs from crossing our Southern border, it is very unlikely we could stop guns from being imported illegally.

This one heck of a Gordian knot.
 
Last edited:
senior chef said:
It is quite possible to make a valid argument both for, and against the 2nd Amendment.

On the one hand, it could be argued that the 2nd Amendment, "... the right of the people to KEEP and CARRY arms shall not be infringed", does indeed make the country safer from FOREIGN invasion, as well as from internal enemies. I could argue that from 1933 to 1945, if all Jews had been armed when Nazis came for them and those Jews were willing to kill any Nazi that tried to carry away his family, the holocaust would never have happened.
Click to expand...
That's not likely, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party adapted, manipulated, and radicalised the unfounded belief in the existence of an "Aryan race." In Germany, the Nazis promoted this false notion that glorified the German people as members of the "Aryan race," while denigrating Jews, Black people, homosexuals and Sinti (Gypsies) as “non-Aryans.”
senior chef said:
On the other hand, I get sick to my stomach hear about yet another mass murder in our nation's schools.

Some days I feel one way and a few days later I feel differently.

It is well known that there are more guns in America than there are people. So, even IF Congress , and the states outlawed the sale of guns, and ammunition, it would be a hundred years or more before we would see any decrease in murder with a gun.
Moreover, if we can not protect America from dangerous illegal drugs from crossing our Southern border, it is very unlikely we could stop guns from being imported illegally.

This one heck of a Gordian knot.
Click to expand...
You might find this BBC report: Why British police don’t have guns, of interest.
 
Aunt Bea said:
The question for the lawyers to hash over has always been what is meant by not having access. Does it mean locked in the trunk or glove compartment, in a locked case, a trigger lock, etc...
Click to expand...

Case law would generally indicate what is and is not permitted. No access to, in a nutshell, means "NOT ready at hand"!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top