Slate: Kavanaugh’s “Breathtakingly Expansive View of the Second Amendment” Signals a “Constitutional Revolution”

Brett Kavanaugh via Office of the Vice President

Naturally, the comedy far-left politics e-magazine Slate has taken interest in the first Second Amendment case SCOTUS has agreed to hear in a decade. The case challenges the city’s prohibition on transporting licensed, locked and unloaded handguns outside the city, and the Court’s decision could have far-reaching effects, as we discuss further here.

Slate‘s take on this whole affair is eminently quotable comedic gold.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh [is] a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment.

What constitutes such a “breathtakingly expansive” view? Slate‘s Jurisprudence columnist Mark Joseph Stern explains:

If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

Notice how he calls the gun range your second home? Maybe those lefties aren’t so out of touch, after all. Mind you, this whole line of reasoning refers to transporting a gun unlocked and unloaded, not carrying it on one’s person – a distinction Stern repeatedly struggles with throughout his article.

As icing on the cake, Stern describes the apocalypse that will befall us if this breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment is honored:

Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. A central premise of Heller and McDonald—that the Second Amendment protects handguns “in the home”—will be cast aside. New York State Rifle will be the first shot in a coming constitutional revolution.

Let freedom ring.

Excerpts from “The Supreme Court is Preparing to Make Every State’s Gun Laws Look Like Texas'” via Slate

comments

  1. avatar Skoon says:

    From his lips to gods ears

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The author of the article has more faith in Kavanaugh than some do and one can only hope is the case in the end.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I sure hope he’s right.

  2. avatar bryan1980 says:

    In regards to the title of the Slate article, I wish Texas’ gun laws looked more like Arizona’s!

    1. avatar m. says:

      they are not the same because of taquiyya-bama d-suckers

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Evil POS (D).

    2. avatar Grant. says:

      As an Arizonan.. People are coming here in droves. I drive and see Cal and Colorado license plates on Subarus and liberal cars. It’s scary stuff. LIBERALS are getting taxed too much by their own system so they go infect another state. I pray all the time that God protects all of the gun rights in the U.S., and all of you should too. I think we’re under attack, honestly. I’m not sure how much longer the most gun-loving state can hold out against the commie swarm.

      1. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

        Not to be rude, but I see a crap ton of Texas plates here in Wa, and the politics haven’t changed all that much here…

        1. avatar Jackass Jim says:

          Most of those Texas plates you see here in Washington state are driven by aboriginal aliens still wet behind the ears from a short swim across the Rio Grande.

          [email protected]

        2. avatar Jeff says:

          One of them is my BIL who found Texas far to conservative. I’m happy with one less crazy liberal in Texas

        3. avatar Chrhu Meren says:

          Politics in WA haven’t changed? You haven’t been paying any attention in the last couple years. WA used to be pretty gun friendly, Now we are right up there with NY and CA and a Model for what many want to do to other states.

        4. avatar Tionico says:

          Check the lower left corner of the windscreen for the rectangular DoD sticker, signifying that the owner is military and that the ehicle is cleared to enter military bases. Lots of Texans in the military here in WA..

          As to your comment that things haven’t changed much in Washington lately.. crawl out from under that dense blackberry thicket you live in. In the past three years our gun laws have gotten unacceptably bad, thanks to Mikey BloomingIdiotBurg and the libs of King and Snoh9omish counties. Our Supreme Court sold us down the river on that last antigun citizen’s initiatie, giving it a pass. Oregon had the identical ballot intiatiove, same disqualifying illegalitis in it as here. Two corrupt local courts in Oregon gave that ballot bill a pass despite its serious illegalities. The Oregon Supreme Court took a couple days to look at the petition, and ORDERED the bill be taken off the ballot. WA Supreme Court looked at our version, and issued an order saying it cannot be kept off the ballot. False advertising in a flood of Bloomies sponsored TeeVee and other media adverts focused on a couple of buzzword issues and the voters, being to lazy to look up and READ the damnable thing, voted for it. Now its passed into law many who signed or voted for it are shocked to realise some of the nastier things in it.

          Strange thing, because ballot initiatives in this state, Oregon as well, are prohibited from dealing with more than one issue in each iniative. This bill contains close to a dozen DIFFERENT issues, and thus directly violates the WA State Constitution.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        The average vehicle with Texas plates here in Colorado, and in New Mexico as well, is driven so poorly and so arrogantly that I go out of my way to put distance between myself and that vehicle. It’s hard to do though because there are so fucking many of them.

        California tags are generally a sign of even worse driving. Especially if they’re on a Prius or a Smart Car.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          WTH is it with all the Texas plates anyway? It seems like half of the out of state plates I see are Texas. I thought Texans loved Texas, why are they always elsewhere?

          (Don’t get bent out of shape Texans, I think Texas is fine, I just wonder why you folks are always driving around here in the mountains)

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I thought Texans loved Texas, why are they always elsewhere?”

          Living in Colorado years ago, people there complained about the loud, rude, arrogant, untidy Texans all over the state. I would remind people that Texans came to Colorado, hurrahed the towns, then left; Californians never went back home. To hear it lately, I was right all along.

    3. avatar anonymoose says:

      Ohio’s laws are better than Texas’s, except there are a few changes I would like to see that haven’t happened yet, thanks to Kasich and his pals (colleges still have to opt-in for campus carry, you can’t have any gun other than a licensed handgun in the cabin of your car unless the magazines are unloaded and it’s in a case, and we still don’t have constitutional carry or the CHL-background check override they were talking about just before Kasich started running for president). On the bright side, we’ve always been able to open carry anything here, with no licenses or other crap.

  3. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I hope Kavanaugh is mindful of how he was treated by the filthy, subhuman Liberal Terrorists™️ during his confirmation every time he writes an opinion. That includes the feral domestic enemies on the judicial committee to their propagandists in the media.

    1. avatar Wayne says:

      Although I hope he keeps it in mind, what I hope for is ALL justices remember they are supposed to be impartial & their decisions are based on the constitutionality of what’s brought before them instead of their political or personal feelings about it. I know that’s not realistic but one can hope

  4. avatar DaveL says:

    A central premise of Heller and McDonald—that the Second Amendment protects handguns “in the home”—will be cast aside.

    This actually manages to stand out as a remarkable misunderstanding of 2nd Amendment caselaw, among a profession notorious for its routinely outrageous misunderstandings of all things related to the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar CZ Peasy says:

      Yes, just because one thing is permitted doesn’t mean that all other things are prohibited. But that is is the way they think. They want to ban everything. And anything not banned is mandatory.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        To be fair, the decisions were written in such a way to emphasize what they were not saying as much as what they were saying; the only way to get 5 votes with Kennedy there.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Absolutely correct! That’s why we PotG shouldn’t get lathered-up about mere dicta in the Heller opinion.

          “Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. ” This statement is absolutely correct.

          The NY case is a “transport” case; nothing more. That 4 justices granted cert means that they are sure a 5’th will vote to find a right to transport a handgun outside the home.

          Now, by what reasoning could 5 justices possibly agree that there is any right to transport a handgun outside the home? This will become the task of the justice in the majority chosen to write the opinion.

          Conceivably, he will write that the right to “keep” a handgun in one home implies the right to “keep” it in a second home. What’s a home-owner to do? He is forbidden to mail (by USPS) a handgun from one home to another. He is forbidden to transport his handgun to a UPS/FedEx office which will ship it to him. Would he have to take it to a range/FFL for the purpose of having the range/FFL take it to UPS/FedEx? This would surely be a strained rationale.

          What about the right to “bear” arms? If there is any such right (. . . there, you see the word “bear” in the text?) then it certainly must encompass the right to transport from one home to another and from home to a range. – – This will be the explicit finding. – – Now, surround this finding with lots of dicta about how there exists some right to “bear” outside the home. Perhaps NOT to bear: everywhere; at any time; under any circumstance. To so reason would be unnecessary to resolve the NY transport case. Nevertheless, the reasoning may go, there must be some right to bear outside the home that isn’t strictly limited to transport between homes or home-to-range. Clearly, there is a right to bear in the fields for hunting. A right to bear at a range for target practice. Forty-plus states recognize a right to bear arms in public places – roads, highways, sidewalks, parking lots, etc. – for self-defense. These rights to bear in public can’t possibly mere indulgences (privileges) granted by legislatures. The practice of bearing arms in these 40 states illustrates a deep-seated sense of we the People that there is – and has always been – some right to bear arms in public. In the NY case SCOTUS will not need to spell-out exactly where one has a right to bear arms; that will be left to state legislatures and the inferior courts. But, it will find a right to bear arms outside the home.

          Now, if the majority opinion plays out this way, the inferior courts will be hard-pressed to uphold state laws barring public carry by the People generally; not just a handful of Democrat party cronies. They will try, but then their rulings will be subject to appeal to Circuits. The Circuits will try to uphold such laws, but eventually SCOTUS will grant cert to a May-Issue case that seems to run counter to its ruling that there IS a right to bear outside the home. Then, SCOTUS will invoke the Wrenn v DC case to prohibit may-issue.

          It is precisely because this NY transport case is so narrow that it was taken and will enjoy a favorable ruling; one with reasoning that greases the skids for a carry case.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          MarkPA,

          I think your predictions are accurate. Unfortunately, that means it will take another 10 to 20 years to fully clarify (via cases to the U.S. Supreme Court) that we have a right to carry firearms for self-defense while out-and-about for any or no reason — along with the usual caveats that “sensitive places” can ban firearm possession. And then it will take another 10 years to clarify which locations qualify as “sensitive places” and which locations do not.

          Personally, I am looking for a court case which nullifies my state’s ban on long guns in vehicles unless they are unloaded and inaccessible (which means in the trunk or locked in a case). I would be willing to have a restriction that says long guns in your vehicle cannot have a cartridge/shell in the chamber to ensure that a long gun cannot discharge in a vehicular crash. Beyond that, I want the option to have a rifle or shotgun in the back seat with a loaded magazine. Granted, I would almost never carry a rifle or shotgun in the back seat. Nevertheless, I want the option.

        3. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “…Unfortunately, that means it will take another 10 to 20 years to fully clarify (via cases to the U.S. Supreme Court) that we have a right to carry firearms for self-defense while out-and-about for any or no reason —…”

          Not if we are *smart* about it!

          That means, putting in the grunt work to keep the lawsuit pipeline chock-full of tasty challenges to bullshit 2A laws.

          Then, we drop them in SCOTUS’s lap as they come up…

    2. avatar Mike H says:

      You’re not alone. That distortion stood out with me as well.

  5. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    I didn’t interpret that slate quote to say gun ranges are a second home. The two sentences are referencing two separate arguments.

    1. avatar DeservingPorcupine says:

      Agreed.

    2. avatar Mike H in WA says:

      This^^^

      Two of the plaintiffs want to take their firearms to ranges out of the city. But a third wants to take it to a home he owns in upstate NY.

    3. avatar Swarf says:

      Pretty sure that was a joke.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You’re sure *what* was a joke? I was pretty sure the original reference to a law which does not allow citizens to remove their personal property from NY had to be a joke, yet I was wrong.

        1. avatar Karl says:

          Larry –

          Both New York and Slate are jokes.

  6. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    What most folks don’t realize is that what Heller (the individual) wanted was the right to “keep” a handgun in the home. So, that’s what their case argued for. He didn’t sue to have the right to “bear” (carry outside the home). This is why the decision was narrow and only pertained to the right to keep a gun in the home. The filthy leftists think that because Heller is narrow that anything else is a gross expansion. They were confined to rule on the scope that was before them. The reality is that the S.C. hasn’t had a case it’s been willing to hear about the second part, “carry/bear”. Had to wait until Kennedy left.

  7. avatar LKB says:

    If you think this article is overwrought, just wait.

    When the case is about to be argued and the legal analysts start writing serious articles about the likely implications of the case, expect to see the MSM loudly predicting that the world will end if the NYC bans aren’t upheld (in a transparent effort to turn Roberts’ head).

    My long shot prediction: shrewder Dems will realize (probably at oral argument) that there’s about to be a sea change in 2A jurisprudence, and will persuade NYC to try to outflank the Court by announcing that it is dropping the travel restriction (and thus will move to dismiss the case as moot).

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      I agree. If you look at this from an anti guns stance, lifting the travel ban really means very little.
      Looking at it from our point of view, I don’t think it really means much either. Traveling with a locked unloaded firearm should be a no Brainer. Living on Long Island I was always allowed to travel thru NYC as long as the firearm was locked and unloaded. Was this changed or am I missing something?
      However if it goes to the court who knows what it means as interpreted by the Media.
      I can see them vilify Trump and his selections over virtually nothing.

      1. avatar Tionico says:

        The issue in this case s a NYC law that prohiits anyone with their Mother May I autjorised handgun the abilitu to transport that “permitted” handgun outside of city limits, or within other than between his listed place of residence and a known gun range inside the city. that means a NYC resident, even with all the Mother May I Cards required, could not pop his unloaded handgin into a locked hard case, and his ammunitioinintoa separate but equal case, and drive out to your place on Long Island.

        But YOU< a resident on Long Island, are able to transport your own unloaded handgun in alocked hard sided case in your car, with ammunition in a separate but equal container, through the City of New York.

        Strange, when we in most of the rest of the nation transport our unlocked very loaded weapons on our own bodies at will no special Mother May I Cards, nearly everywhere we go…… whether in the car driving or riding, or walking, on a bus or commute train, on our bicycles , at the park, bank, concert hall, greengrocer's, church, state legislature floor, even in session…….

        and New York City can't trust their people to lock it up and drive outside their domain with it i their cars? Either NYC is populated with irreponsible petulant infants or it is run by them.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      We shall have to remind them that it doesn’t really matter, AOC has declared the world will have ended 12 years from now anyway, we should just chill, party on!

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Nostracommus in a skirt.

      2. When did she claim that?

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      LKB,

      What happens if New York City does drop the travel restriction? Can the U.S. Supreme Court still issue a ruling on bearing arms outside the home that is binding on all courts?

      And if we are talking about “outflanking”, can someone from Upstate New York join the lawsuit because New York City forbids him/her from transporting their handgun into New York City? That would keep the case alive even if New York City allows residents to transport their handguns out of city limits.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        Attempts to moot an looming unfavorable SCt. ruling by rescinding the law in question are nothing new. Long explanation grossly simplified: the Court wouldn’t have to take NYC’s word for it that the case is truly moot (what’s to stop them from simply reinstituting the ban once the case is dismissed as purportedly “moot”?), and the longer they wait to do so the greater the odds the Court won’t do so. (Were they to change the law right away, this tactic might have better odds. But with the left painting itself into a corner with its fury against anything remotely connected with guns, I don’t see that happening.)

        As far as interventions in the cert petition by upstate residents, nope. If they didn’t intervene in the case when it was in the lower courts, they don’t have a claim before the court on appeal. (If the case gets sent back, they could try to intervene if/when it’s remanded, or bring their own lawsuit.)

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          To say nothing of the fact that two different statutes are involved, and thus intervention to challenge NYC’s long standing exemption from NYS pre-emption is unlikely. As far as NYC is concerned, it is a sovereign onto itself.

      2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        “What happens if New York City does drop the travel restriction?”

        I’m inclined to believe that the “4 Horseman of the 2A Apocalypse” (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch) will see it as the desperate play that it is and ignore it.

        Even better, it may harden their resolve to give the 2A the respect it deserves.

        I agree with LKB. We ain’t seen *nothing* yet with regards to teeth gnashing, pearl-clutching, self (and others!) flagellation, and other displays of angst by the Leftists. I predict some of them will lash out in desperation and do something really stupid around the time of oral arguments…

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      LKB,

      One more thing: how do the plaintiffs have standing when New York City has not actually prosecuted any of them for transporting their handguns out of the city?

      I ask this because, if a plaintiff can have standing without actually being prosecuted, that opens the door for countless people to start lawsuits against local/state laws which restrict firearm possession outside the home.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        You don’t have to be prosecuted in order to have standing to challenge a gun law. See Heller, McDonald, Peruta, etc., etc., etc.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Thank you for your patience and gracious responses to my questions LKB. (And I am sincere about that — I am not implying any snark.) I am a serious advocate for our rights: the more knowledgeable I am, the more effective I can be.

  8. avatar EricO says:

    I have being in a position to defend slate, but the Communist isn’t calling the gun range a second home. Part of the suit against NYC includes people who literally have two homes and can’t take their Firearms it off the city to their literal second home.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I’m pretty sure that’s a little joke on the author’s part.

  9. avatar mark s. says:

    My fingers are still crossed .

  10. avatar Hannibal says:

    What’s breathtaking is that any idiot can be living in America and not understand why people should be able to carry a gun to a firing range or their second home (two separate entities).

    It’s what you get when you have a publication like Slate where everyone there works in NYC or DC.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I blew a tire on an Interstate 50 miles west of Albuquerque, got clear of the highway (run-flats) and called for roadside assistance. I was at the intersection of the interstate and a county road, and the operator could not understand why I would not tell him “what I was near”, as in, a business, a church, a home, whatever. I explained repeatedly that there was only one such intersection of those 2 roads in the world, the closest “something” I could tell him I was near was Albuquerque, 50 miles east, I was on an Indian reservation and there was not one iota of construction visible in any direction, on and on. He could absolutely NOT understand there was a place on Earth where there were not 100-story buildings on every side and several hundred (or thousand) other people in sight. Our education system is not failing, it has failed. And, BTW, the wrecker got lost because the operator could not tell him the intersection and there were no other references, so it took a few extra hours for him to arrive. This is the kind of people we are dealing with.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        I work in a similar job as Chumbo who had a beautiful intersection and defind area smaller than a state to look. I swear at least 10% of my people who call in have no idea where they are with my people being professional drivers. Once I was told “I’m at the McDonald’s in Indiana.” When I asked for clarification I was told “everyone knows where it is.” Think that’s bad? I had a guy break down in Portland. I asked if he was in Oregon or Maine… and he had to ask.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          You mean to tell me there are TWO McDonald’s in Indiana?

      2. avatar MyName says:

        I have observed that many people who have spent most or all of their lives on the coasts of the U.S. have no concept of the vast spaces in the middle. I live in the mountain west and was once stuck for a few hours on a highway between two mountain towns because of a major wreck up ahead. Later, when I was relating this story to a friend from eastern Pennsylvania, he asked why I didn’t double back and take another road. “Uh, there is no other road,” I replied. He just couldn’t figure that out.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    We’ll see.Sorry but I’m not counting on Kavanaugh’s righteous indignation. Only Thomas’s…although one would think Brett was treated much worse than Clarence!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I dunno. Both were despicable, Kavanaugh’s was just more recent.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        But BOTH remember how they were treated by the Leftists during their confirmation…

  12. avatar Robroyb says:

    My fingers are crossed as well. On a positive note, President Trump is doing an incredible job revamping the courts with Conservative judges. Around 25% of the judges have been reassigned so far. That is huge. Way to go President Trump!!

  13. avatar Scooter says:

    Imagine… a world where all the Billy Bass types second guess their carjacking or home invasion because John Q. Public *might* be armed! How awful. Billy Badass Jr. considers his teachers might return fire, so he doesn’t bring a gun to school. Gasp.

    1. avatar Scooter says:

      Oops, apologies to Billy Badass Sr. about the last name. No more edit option?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Edit option? We don’t need no steenking edit option!

        1. avatar Angry Dad says:

          Oh yes we do bandito.

  14. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    When liberals cry, it is a good day for liberty.

  15. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?”

    Leftards really do understand what To Keep And Bear really means,”Shall Not Be Infringed” now if those of little Constitutional comprehension could/would grasp that concept as well.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      But those big words are so hard for leotards.

  16. avatar Kyle says:

    Just as the right wing for years was wrong on pot, the left wing is wrong, and has been for years, about guns.

    Its not all that complicated.

    Even if both sides tend to forget it, we are a free people, and not as seems to ever increasingly be the case, a “fee People”.

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Where is Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Is she alive, dead, in a coma?

    Is this like when President Wilson had a stroke and his wife wouldn’t allow anybody to see him for several months. She took any papers the president needed to sign into a room and then they were signed and nobody knew who actually signed or didn’t sign paperwork.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      wondering same thing….

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Now there is an interesting idea for a U.S. Constitutional amendment: any “Tier One” government actor must sign all orders in full view of the public so that we know they actually signed it.

      I am thinking that “Tier One” government actors would be the likes of the U.S. President and Vice President, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Secretary of State, and the person at the top (whose title might often be “Director”) of a handful of agencies such as the FBI, IRS, EPA, NSA.

    3. avatar LKB says:

      Who knows (I’ve been hearing rumors that she is very, very frail), but if Roberts / Thomas / Alito / Goresuch / Kavanaugh suspected that that was going on, they could just start requiring her to actually show up for votes on the cases (a-la Congress, where if you’re not on the floor of the chamber casting your vote, you’re not voting).

      Right now, the Court is letting her work from home and participate in conferences by telephone, but my understanding is that that is more of a professional courtesy. If she (or her staff, or the left wing of the Court) starts abusing that accommodation (i.e., she is actually incapacitated but won’t quit and it appears that her staff is acting as the Justice), they could just quit allowing her to vote remotely.

      Frankly, given the close collegial relationships between the justices, I find it almost impossible to believe that RBG or her staff would even attempt the kind of Edith Bolling Wilson move that is being suggested, as it just wouldn’t work and would destroy her reputation.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        If you think the Leftists are losing their shit over the NY Pistol cert. being granted, can you *imagine* the reaction if Ginsburg ‘assumes room temperature’?

        For a bunch of self-proclaimed atheists, watch how fast many drop to their knees in prayer if her medical condition goes drastically downhill… 😉

      2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        {Where is RBG?}

        “Who knows (I’ve been hearing rumors that she is very, very frail),…”

        About a week and a half ago, a grainy video popped up supposedly showing “The Notorious RBG” in a wheelchair :

        https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-video-lung-cancer-frail-supreme-court-rbg/

  18. avatar Mark N. says:

    “If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?”

    Exactly. There is no logical reason that if one is allowed any other should be restricted. [This apart from the fact that the NYC law and FOPA require the firearm to be unloaded and in a locked container, rendering it not particularly useful while running errands. And it ignores that NYC hunters must have a special license to take their shotgun or rifle out of town to go hunting.]

  19. avatar GunnyGene says:

    One word: Mississippi. 🙂

  20. avatar Paul says:

    He did not say a range was a second home. That is what you read into it. He poses a second question. Two examples of places to legally possess it and travel to with it. Hypothetically, one may have ten homes and travel to each with a gun and it would be legal. One may travel to 10 ranges with it legally. He may have meant that to a person who owns guns it is a second home, but it does not say that.

    1. avatar ev rogers says:

      whats so hard about transporting your own weapon to wherever you want to yourself.
      the law of transferring a weapon from one ffl to another is not that much of a pain..
      years ago i had an ffl and ups would deliver right to my house. this guy makes it sound like transporting a firearm is a big deal . he must be in new jersey new york conneticut or another such state.
      having lived in arizona all my live i cant comprehend the sceanarios presented in this letter. i have a book that gives the laws for people traveling thru states and its not that big a deal as long as you dont intend to stay for an extended period of time or live there. i know women here that have carried in thier purses for the last thirty years

  21. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Being surrounded by leftists in college, speculating on their reaction to an SC ruling that strikes down the NYC law is relative easy (though dangerous over the long term). Given that Scalia provided an escape hatch regarding “reasonable” limits to the presence of firearms, it is easy to foresee NYC simply changing the law (or writing a new one) that requires: complete disassembly of the fire arm while securely stored during transportation; the requirement that the firearm (disassembled) be transported separately from ammunition; notifying in writing, and in advance, all jurisdictions along the route of the date and time of travel, that you have the firearm, and consent to stop and search without probable cause or warrant; the firearm frame/stock and firing mechanism must be transported separately from the barrel, on separate calendar days.

    A combination of all, or any of the above.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It’s also easy to see what happened in Illinois happening in NY.

      Feds tell ILL. to institute a shall issue system.

      ILL. tries its standard shenanigans.

      Feds reply. Either do a shall issue system or you will be constitutional carry in 3..2..1

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      There’s an easier way for government. The act (law) says see regulation. Regulation can be changed without vote or consultation.

  22. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Slate. Never go full Slate.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    I would point out two things here.

    First, Heller McDonald were narrowly tailored because the suits were narrowly tailored. D.C. had a handgun ban and effectively banned guns for self defense within the home by requiring that lawfully owned and possessed long guns be either disassembled or locked in such a way that would make them virtually impossible to use for self-defense due to the time required to get the firearm into the fight. Chicago had a blanket handgun ban which they argued was permissible because the 2A doesn’t apply to the states and that the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine doesn’t apply to the 2A. SCOTUS said otherwise.

    Past these fairly narrow findings there are still arguments to be made so that SCOTUS can make findings. That’s just the way the law works.

    Secondly, and more interesting to me, is the implicit admission in this piece that in many ways the courts are more important than the legislature or the executive branches at both the state and federal level. For a long time the Left has recognized that while courts can overturn legislative and executive actions the reverse is not true. As such they have acted to fill court vacancies with judges that are sympathetic to Leftist points of view and then run to the courts to get what they want. For most of that time more conservatively minded people just complained about the outcome of these court cases and pointed out the holes in the logic. No more.

    Trump is, in some ways, the first POTUS to recognize what the Left has done on this front and act on it. He also came along at such a time, due to vacancies in the judiciary, that his actions can have an outsized effect because of the sheer number of people he can appoint and the number of people he has and may be able to appoint to the SCOTUS. As such, the Slate article is essentially an admission/recognition that abandoning politics and running to the courts has now become a double-edged sword that worked well for the Left for a long time but which now runs a serious risk of cutting them because the opposition has recognized the value of this weapon as well and did so at a very opportune time.

    The recognition by right-of-center people that the judiciary can be, for lack of a better term, “weaponized” and the Left’s realization that their opponents have realized the existence of this weaponization means that things are about to get a hell of a lot nastier in elections with both sides recognizing the value of appointment powers to change the legal landscape for long periods of time if not forever. It also means that the appointment/confirmation process is about to get a hell of a lot nastier too. The next SCOTUS nominee, regardless of who is POTUS at the time, is going to be in for a confirmation process that will make Kavanaugh’s hearing look extremely tame. That battle is going to be, to steal from Law Abiding Citizen “…von Clausewitz type shit, total fucking war”.

    What Slate is admitting to, a little late, is that 2A supporters have figured out how to fight back effectively and do so in a way that overrides the way the Left has been fighting this little war. The next set of battles is going to be for who gets control of the “trump cards” in the judiciary and those battles are, IMHO, going to either put us back on the right road or tear the country apart trying to get back to that road.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The next SCOTUS nominee, regardless of who is POTUS at the time, is going to be in for a confirmation process that will make Kavanaugh’s hearing look extremely tame.”

      The rest of your commentary was just fine. When a Dimowit president nominates federal judges and SC justices, the Republicrats will default to the “gentlemanly” role, and look to make things look civil and refined. It is their DNA. Republicrats may have the nerve to continue to confirm jurists based on simple majority, but Reid set things in motion specifically so Dimwitocrats could control court appointments (including SC) with simple majorities. They will not hesitate, even if Republicrats decided to return to the 60 vote cloture rule, as a display of fairness, collegiality, good manners, graceful winners.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “…the Republicrats will default to the “gentlemanly” role, and look to make things look civil and refined.”

        Normally I would agree with this completely. However, at this point I don’t. The reason is, IMHO, twofold:

        First, RBG is very likely the next Justice to be replaced. Even moderate RINO Republicans don’t like her and they want that seat. The argument with RINOs would be on whom should replace RBG. RINOs would prefer a moderate and that’s not what they’ll get if the Left gets to run the nomination/confirmation process.

        Secondly, if Trump was to lose in 2020 (I don’t see that currently as being a big risk but things could change) then we have to look at who might actually replace Trump and get to make the appointment. Bloomberg, for reasons I went over yesterday, isn’t likely to win for numerous reasons which means because of the way things are going in Democratic precincts and who’s running, the winner would almost by default be a Kamala Harris type Leftist. In fact KH is running so it might be her. At best we’re looking at Biden or a Biden-type of person.

        This means that their nomination to the SCOTUS would not be a centrist or even a moderate Lefty but rather very likely an openly radical Leftist judge with a history of radical decisions on the bench. Even if you got a Biden-type of POTUS they’d be pushed to make a radical nomination to please their base.

        Such a nomination choice would almost certainly be driven by the Left’s base under any circumstances and would therefore be someone very far outside the mainstream of modern American jurisprudence (for whatever that’s worth). No matter what they’ll be driven to pick someone at least as far Left as RGB but, in reality, probably someone farther Left. That will end up being someone only the far Left base of the Democratic party can even begin to support.

        No matter how you cut it or what position you look at it from politically, the next SCOTUS nomination is for all the marbles and it’s for keepsies. They either swing the court to being farther Right than it has been in decades or they’re a last-ditch stopgap to prevent that from happening. As such I see this as being a knife fight in a telephone booth no matter who is POTUS and no matter who they nominate.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The point I was making recounted the likelihood of Republicrats reverting to type when faced wit a Dimwitocrat SC nominee. If Trump is succeeded by impending doom, and the Senate is retained by the Republicrats (surrounded by leftist House and President), I have little confidence the Republicrats would be bold; they want to press and opposition to like and respect them. With Trump present, Republicrats will let him take the heat while they fill the bench with sympathizers. Without Trump, they lose backbone.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam:

          I understand your argument and I agree that historically speaking it’s completely correct.

          I, personally, think that the paradigm has shifted these days because of Trump’s election. IMHO, it’s not really an issue of “seeing the Left for what they are” but rather that Trump’s win over HRC pushed the Left, who were so close to getting everything they ever wanted, into an absolute freak out.

          That freak out, IMHO, is the key because it pretty much determines that the Left will not have a response in terms of a hypothetical SCOTUS nomination that is remotely rational. Their response won’t be to pick someone who’s a moderate that would sail through confirmation but oppose the Right wing of the court but rather to pick someone they think would by a hyper-liberal counterweight to the Right.

          That knowledge, either before the fact or in looking at the nominee will cause even RINO’s to oppose the nomination. Again, IMHO.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I agree RINOs will oppose a leftist SC nominee. But, they will oppose it quietly, gentlemanly, procedurally, quaintly. They may ask some tough questions, but they will not trash the nominee, regardless of how vile the nominee may be. The key is the presence or absence of Trump to provide backbone. Since Trump would be absent from the presidency, Republicrats will be under no pressure from the White House (pressure from a liberal/leftist president will be nothing compared to Trump pressure). We have seen what Rebuplicrats do when they are free to be themselves.

          Bottom line, Republicrats do not believe the future of the country is as stake. They remain muddled in the old ways of being the minority party; everything is just politics, with everyone agreeing on principle, disagreeing on how to get there.

      2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        “When a Dimowit president nominates federal judges and SC justices, the Republicrats will default to the “gentlemanly” role, and look to make things look civil and refined. It is their DNA.”

        That was then, this is *now*.

        The Kav nomination ‘circus’ has ripped the scab right off as to how the Leftists operate. Even Lindsey Graham now sees things for how they are.

        Strych has nailed it. Both sides understand what’s at stake. The SCOTUS justices themselves can read the writing on the wall. This is for all the marbles…

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Yeah, that old gentlemanly Republican era is dead and gone. They gave a big fuck you to the leftist terrorists when they denied hearings for Garland then invoked the judicial nuclear option once Trump was elected. The proof is in the pudding that the republicans finally realized that the most important thing they can do is nominate and confirm conservative judges/justices.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Even Lindsey Graham now sees things for how they are.”

          Might be, but Leopards can’t really change their spots. Trump is the backbone for the entire Republicrat party. Without Trump (and most importantly Trump’s base), the backbone will be gone. Thence the reversion.

          If you look closely, there may be only one or two Republicrats (and their donors) who actually think times have changed since the 1950s. Most seem to be seeing today as nothing more than business as usual, as it has been for so long. To underscore, how many Republicrats are really out there shouting support for Trump over immigration, and/or anything else? Just like with “repeal and replace”.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “If you look closely, there may be only one or two Republicrats (and their donors) who actually think times have changed since the 1950s.”

          Realistically they would be right, things haven’t changed much since the 1950’s (or hadn’t until last year or until 1995 depending on how you look at it).

          The major change in SCOTUS decisions came in the late 1930’s after the SCOTUS bent to the political pressure created by FDR and his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.

          Prior to that the court struck down nearly every part of FDR’s social and domestic policies even though by the early 1940’s he had appointed eight of the nine justices. His threat to change the court to his liking did in fact change the court to his liking by instead of packing the court, bending the existing makeup of the court to his will. The court, looking to nullify the need for the proposed 1937 legislation found in FDR’s favor in a case who’s name I currently forget but it was a case involving hotel taxes in California. This was in 1938 or 1939.

          In 1942 the case we discuss here a lot Wickard v. Filburn came down in FDR’s favor. It wasn’t until 1995 that the SCOTUS heard a case where they decided that the authority granted to the feds in the Commerce Clause had been exceeded (U.S. v. Lopez).

          The decision in Wickard is actually a lot like our famous ACA decision authored by Roberts and actually played a pivotal role in the ACA case. In Wickard lower courts had held that the way the government had conducted a plebiscite required by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was unlawful. It surely was. The government wasn’t following it’s own rules but it argued that it didn’t have to follow it’s own rules because of the Commerce Clause. Wanting to give FDR a win, and also support the government since we had just been attacked at Pearl Harbor and entered WWII while also staying with their own opinion in the previous California hotel case, the court agreed to an expansive view of the Commerce Clause to justify the decision in Wickard and effectively ignore the lower court ruling that had nothing to do with this topic.

          So really, from about 1940 on things have pretty much gone as usual since the major changes in the way the SCOTUS has looked at things, in terms of deference to the government’s position, occurred then and really didn’t change until the mid 1990’s and even then they didn’t change much.

          Therefore folks who don’t read up on this or are not Constitutional lawyers can generally be forgiven for thinking “this is the way things are and have been” because most of the people alive today weren’t born or are not old enough to have known a time when things were not this way.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Therefore folks who don’t read up on this or are not Constitutional lawyers can generally be forgiven for thinking “this is the way things are and have been” ”

          Senators and Representatives are all lawyers, and all supposed to know the constitution. They cannot be forgiven.

  24. avatar Chris Morton says:

    One can only hope.

    Antifa hardest hit… in more ways than one.

  25. avatar Gary L. Griffiths says:

    …and in other news, THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! Film at eleven.

  26. avatar Zonefighter says:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    keep =t o own
    bear = to carry
    Arms = weapons of war
    shall not be infringed. = shall not be infringed.

    The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to deny the government the authorty to restrict the people’s right to be armed for their own defense, against the government if need be

    “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    — George Mason, Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
    – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

      All well and good, but it is not Kryptonite to anti-gun marketing efforts. The Second Amendment has not prevented the circus we find ourselves in, today. Statistics and logic fail to turn the argument in our favor. We are at near-stasis, and momentum, on a large scale, is not on our side.

      I would seriously like to know how many anti-gun zealots have been converted when faced with the constitution, and writings of the framers regarding possession of firearms by the people? Or maybe a count of the number of “undecideds” who have been converted by presentation of constitution, and writings of the founders.

      If you look back to the year 2000, the public, despite the truth and math, decided that the year 2000 was the turn of the century. It wasn’t factual, or true, but the world decided being factually correct wasn’t important so long as everyone agreed that popular opinion eradicates fact.

      Today, you have an elected member of the House of Representatives declaring facts don’t matter so long as you have good intentions. And what are we doing? Spouting facts, logic, statistics, truth. How has that been working out for us? Stalemate? Stalemate is better than losing? If we ain’t winning, we are losing. Why isn’t our message selling in the arena of ideas (where we should be the superior force)?

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      The most important word in Samuel Adams’ quote is…. “NEVER”. We as a nation have strayed so far and betrayed their intentions, that collectively and cumulatively, we all should share some shame and culpability. It’s hard to imagine that such an inept, crude and historically uninformed man like President Trump has done more good for this country by way of judicial nominees than any other American in the last 100 years. Still, that may not be enough to restore our Constitutional Republic. It may very well take a catastrophic kinetic engagement in DEFENSE of our nation, to fight against the progressive terrorists and their “War of Leftist Aggression”. Unfortunately, IMO, the absolute and unequivocal liquidation of every one of the millions of these feral domestic enemies and the extinction of their rancid ideologies is the only remedy. “Winner take all, once and for all”. Sign me up.

  27. avatar ev rogers says:

    the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. makes it clear enoughthe way things are supposed to be. most people noth understanding the use of a comma mistakenly combine the milita part with the right of the people part. the use of the comma is to separate the two parts of the sentence. pardon me from being college educated but it doesnt take a college educated person to understand the proper use of a comma. it really shocks me that in the 21st century people dont know or maybe dont want to know the comma separates thoughts or statements

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “it really shocks me that in the 21st century people dont know or maybe dont want to know the comma separates thoughts or statements”

      It is entirely logical to decode the sentence as objective, and supporting rationale. Thus,
      “A well regulated militia…” is the purpose of the supporting words that follow the objective statement. That is, the entire sentence is restricted solely to one purpose – militia. In this deconstruction, there is no other objective at hand; not hunting, not sport, not self-defense. Militia, plain and simple. The question that must then follow is, “Who is the militia”? And the answer is given us through the writings of the framers. “The militia” is not the constabulary, not the National Guard. So where do we find a definition of “the militia”?

      The specific definition of “militia” is found in “The U.S. Code”; a law resulting from legislation, not a provision of the U.S. Constitution. However, the framers often wrote that “the militia” is either all able-bodied men, or “all of us”. (“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” re: G. Mason, Debates in Virginia Convention of Ratification of the constitution, Elliot, Vol.3, June 16, 1788)

      So, even with the objective phrase, “A well-regulated militia…” , a phrase restricting the sentence to a single matter, we end up at an individual right. Virtually all the “collective right” claims are predicated not on the constitution and the intent of the framers, but readings of court rulings. Court rulings that themselves rely on other court rulings. In all, the use of a comma in the single sentence of the Second Amendment does not require education in language or grammar. The Second Amendment only requires that people understand the founding of the nation, and the intent of the framers.

      With all the word-smithing produced to emasculate the Second Amendment, and trying to find ways to root-out new meanings of a single sentence, what you are truly seeing is those men (who were considered functional illiterates by the elites in England) represented the high water mark of intellectual power of this nation. Ever after, the Lilliputians have derived their power and prestige not by superior intellect, but by the cunning with which they can constrain the giant minds that created this republic.

  28. avatar Martin says:

    Since the 2 nd amendment states “shall not be infringed” i.e any gun law is unconstitutional since all of them infringe on the gun owners rights…I would like to see all gun laws declared unconstitutional…especially those in states and cities…no city, county or political sub division should be able to.pass laws more strict than the state.

  29. avatar Mort says:

    Just think about how much the democrats hate the second amendment, just imagine what they will do to the remaining rights in the constitution when they fully implement communism here!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email