Supreme Court ruling on firearms a victory for gun rights advocates.

VMAX  Forum

Help Support VMAX Forum:

Zeus36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
881
Reaction score
220
Location
Ventura, CA
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The 6-3 ruling was the court’s second important decision on the right to “keep and bear arms.” In a landmark 2008 decision, the court had said for the first time that the amendment safeguards a person’s right to possess firearms, although the decision was limited to keeping guns at home for self-defense.

The court has now taken that ruling to the next step after years of ducking the issue and applied the Second Amendment beyond the limits of homeowners’ property in a decision that could affect the ability of state and local governments to impose a wide variety of firearms regulations.

The decision, which came as Congress advanced the most significant gun violence prevention legislation in almost 30 years, involved a New York law that required showing a special need to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public. The state bans carrying handguns openly, but it allows residents to apply for licenses to carry them concealed.

The law at issue said, however, that permits could be granted only to applicants who demonstrated some special need — a requirement that went beyond a general desire for self-protection.

Gun owners in the state sued, contending that the requirement made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to get the necessary license. They argued that the law turned the Second Amendment into a limited privilege, not a constitutional right.

The court agreed with the challengers and struck down the heightened requirement, but it left the door open to allowing states to impose limits on the carrying of guns.

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

In the ruling’s most far-reaching language, Thomas said concern for public safety isn’t enough to justify new gun controls.

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,” he wrote.

Experts on gun laws said that part of the ruling sets a high bar for further gun restrictions.

In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the ruling does not bar states from imposing licensing requirements for carrying handguns for self-defense, such as fingerprinting, background checks and mental health records checks.

New York's law was "problematic because it grants open-ended discretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense" — in effect, denying citizens the right to carry a gun to protect themselves, he wrote.
 
Last edited:

Rollie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
3,423
Reaction score
140
Location
Monticello , Georgia
Packing the court and adding Washington D.C. to state status has been on the left's agenda for decades. They will do anything to maintain control over the masses , including presenting us with false charges / accusations of a Presidential candidate , a sitting President and giving us a corrupt Presidential election .
Epstein didn't kill himself and Biden shouldn't be in charge of the local dogcatcher's department.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
603
Reaction score
504
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Packing the court and adding Washington D.C. to state status has been on the left's agenda for decades. They will do anything to maintain control over the masses , including presenting us with false charges / accusations of a Presidential candidate , a sitting President and giving us a corrupt Presidential election .
Epstein didn't kill himself and Biden shouldn't be in charge of the local dogcatcher's department.


Careful with that type of talk.... the lefties here wont like it and call you a conspiracy nut. Which that term in of itself means theres about 6 months to prove you were correct all the while.
 

caseyjones955

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
2,403
Reaction score
150
Location
Black Hills, South Dakota
It's about time for New York to be able to invoke a constitutional right w/o interference. A win for NY, I'll bet the streets get just a little safer too with a few armed good guys around. Cheers for NY citizens!

A win for freedoms.
Watch for an attempt to pack the Supreme court.
It has been packed already, it's working for gun rights but it is still a court compromised by religious extremism. Many other rights will suffer and the price will be very high.
 

Aquamax

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2022
Messages
52
Reaction score
42
Location
Northern Utah
It has been packed already, it's working for gun rights but it is still a court compromised by religious extremism. Many other rights will suffer and the price will be very high.
While I agree that there are judges on the supreme court who have religious beliefs, (human nature) who do you perceive as extremists? Thomas Alito maybe? He is the one the MSM has zeroed on today. He is one of the most well founded justices of our time, and the left is seething because he's black & voted the other direction.
 

caseyjones955

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
2,403
Reaction score
150
Location
Black Hills, South Dakota
While I agree that there are judges on the supreme court who have religious beliefs, (human nature) who do you perceive as extremists? Thomas Alito maybe? He is the one the MSM has zeroed on today. He is one of the most well founded justices of our time, and the left is seething because he's black & voted the other direction.

Very few argue against reproductive freedoms aside from the extreme religious right. For years now all those controversial governors that threaten us with prayer and religious authority, same ones promising to end abortion, also same ones not too friendly towards our alternative lifestyle counterparts. This is how I arrive at "religious". Essentially they become extreme when they seek to impose their beliefs on the masses.

Thomas and Barrett are the most blatant ones that I can see. Not sure how bad Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are but they were extreme enough to overturn Roe. Thomas seems set to start revoking other rights as well. We need to watch this bad apple (Thomas) very closely. He's not done yet.

I claim that it is extreme to so blatantly run against generations of successful precedent and mountains of empirical evidence and data showing us the critical need for these services to be continued, and the crisis that will mount now that they are not. The written dissent by the more sensible justices does a pretty good job of pulling it all together.


Please note that I'm not intending to bash anyones' personal beliefs. I have no issues with the religious or conservative folks here and mean no offense to anyone. My anger rests squarely with those that used the high courts weaponize and force those beliefs on the masses.
 

rrego

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
49
Reaction score
12
Location
Mn
It has been packed already, it's working for gun rights but it is still a court compromised by religious extremism. Many other rights will suffer and the price will be very high.
[/QUOTE]

Packing the court means adding justices.
 

caseyjones955

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
2,403
Reaction score
150
Location
Black Hills, South Dakota
It has been packed already, it's working for gun rights but it is still a court compromised by religious extremism. Many other rights will suffer and the price will be very high.

Packing the court means adding justices.
[/QUOTE]
My bad, I somehow interchanged packing and stacking. Just had a conversation yesterday about SCOTUS being stacked and it was in my brain. Sorry if any confusion.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2022
Messages
9
Reaction score
8
Very few argue against reproductive freedoms aside from the extreme religious right. For years now all those controversial governors that threaten us with prayer and religious authority, same ones promising to end abortion, also same ones not too friendly towards our alternative lifestyle counterparts. This is how I arrive at "religious". Essentially they become extreme when they seek to impose their beliefs on the masses.

Thomas and Barrett are the most blatant ones that I can see. Not sure how bad Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are but they were extreme enough to overturn Roe. Thomas seems set to start revoking other rights as well. We need to watch this bad apple (Thomas) very closely. He's not done yet.

I claim that it is extreme to so blatantly run against generations of successful precedent and mountains of empirical evidence and data showing us the critical need for these services to be continued, and the crisis that will mount now that they are not. The written dissent by the more sensible justices does a pretty good job of pulling it all together.


Please note that I'm not intending to bash anyones' personal beliefs. I have no issues with the religious or conservative folks here and mean no offense to anyone. My anger rests squarely with those that used the high courts weaponize and force those beliefs on the masses.
So to you there is nothing extreme about cutting a baby’s spinal court and sucking his brain out being legalized and celebrated in states like New York and California as “woman’s health”? Killing a viable fetus is not woman’s health or right. We are talking about a viable person that should be afforded the same protection to life and liberty as the mother. I think that’s a moderate, not an extreme way to look at things and I am the father of a daughter who was born 25 weeks into her gestation at 1 lb weight and she is 29 and healthy today.
 

Zeus36

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
881
Reaction score
220
Location
Ventura, CA
Keep all this BS off the forum!

This area of the forum used to be called The Burn Out Pit and was for anything goes including Not Safe For Work (NSFW) material. Guess they dropped that name with the forum change over, but I believe this Off Topic area is still for anything goes. You can choose not to read this post or any other posts in this section. My post was started as a Second Amendment Constitutional Rights announcement by using my First Amendment Right, but it is not unusual for reply comments to drift off topic. The subsequent comments are pretty tame compared to what has been posted in the Off Topic section in the past.

1656302969931.png
 

sdt354

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
6,082
Reaction score
347
Location
Bristol County, Massachusetts
Keep all this BS off the forum!
Yes,
Those that have been around here for a while know just where this is going. I've got an opinion and a Vmax. I'll take my opinion to
a political forum if I want to watch people argue. Meanwhile, riding season is here. Burn rubber to take out frustration!
 

ouchez

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
710
Reaction score
174
Location
Central Michigan
It has been packed already, it's working for gun rights but it is still a court compromised by religious extremism. Many other rights will suffer and the price will be very high.

Packing the court means adding justices.
[/QUOTE]
I do not believe one's religious belief should be injected into law's or politics, but MORALITY and freedom must always be prime consideration, as well as the #1 being the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The Federal Gov. is to have limited powers and all others to the States as long as the States take no action to violate the Bill of Rights. Murder is still murder and the 2nd is what it says and means, plain and simple. Deal with that or find another country to call home.
 

ouchez

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
710
Reaction score
174
Location
Central Michigan
Very few argue against reproductive freedoms aside from the extreme religious right. For years now all those controversial governors that threaten us with prayer and religious authority, same ones promising to end abortion, also same ones not too friendly towards our alternative lifestyle counterparts. This is how I arrive at "religious". Essentially they become extreme when they seek to impose their beliefs on the masses.

Thomas and Barrett are the most blatant ones that I can see. Not sure how bad Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are but they were extreme enough to overturn Roe. Thomas seems set to start revoking other rights as well. We need to watch this bad apple (Thomas) very closely. He's not done yet.

I claim that it is extreme to so blatantly run against generations of successful precedent and mountains of empirical evidence and data showing us the critical need for these services to be continued, and the crisis that will mount now that they are not. The written dissent by the more sensible justices does a pretty good job of pulling it all together.


Please note that I'm not intending to bash anyones' personal beliefs. I have no issues with the religious or conservative folks here and mean no offense to anyone. My anger rests squarely with those that used the high courts weaponize and force those beliefs on the masses.
What you refuse to accept or realize is that the SCOTUS had no authority in the first place to rule as it did in Roe vs Wade, no standing at all. This is and always has been a state issue and now democracy thru the ballot box in each state will have the final say on abortion, legal or not and if so on what terms. The SCOTUS must NEVER legislate as thy did with ROE. Now a major correction has been made and the Stares must now step up as their citizens demand and their wishes granted. :)
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
603
Reaction score
504
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
As long as no threats or major insults or attacks, let the debate continue, and if one cannot deal with it, tune out. :)

Not that I cannot deal with this. Its too much work arguing with someone who cant or wont get it or with such rigid beliefs, its impossible.

One thing that does fascinate me is why what someone does between themselves and medical professional is any business of yours? Is what they are doing affecting you directly and personally? For me, personally....someone getting rid of something they dont want doesnt affect me. Keeping something they dont want does. How? By the crime most of these unwanted people commit and while growing up the taxes stolen from me paying for them.

One more point to ponder....how many of you here had issues buying groceries during the covid crap? Panic buyers clearing out shelves. Now can you imagine 60 million more people straining the system? That would be something that affects you personally and directly on a scale larger than what you just saw. Just imagine roughly a million more people in your state consuming resources.

Put aside your fairy tale beliefs and think logically about supply and demand. Think logically about where things come from and how they get distributed. Think logically of, can the system in its current state handle more. Then think to yourself....does someone doing something that only affects them and them alone, affect you in any way shape or form.
 

Latest posts

Top