By Miguel A. Faria, M.D.
Until this week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had not made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is protected outside the home. Now it has.
Townhall’s headline read, ‘Supreme Court Hands Down Biggest Second Amendment Victory since Heller.’ Indeed, this is a major historic ruling. The article continues,
The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its opinion in a landmark Second Amendment rights case, the biggest win for gun rights since the court’s Heller ruling holding that ‘New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.’
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion in this landmark ruling, explains:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
Justice Thomas further explained that the Second Amendment is an important, not a secondary, constitutional and natural right — a God-given right that belongs to ordinary citizens, to “the people” cited by the Constitution and that it cannot be trampled by government.
He goes on to say:
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.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for selfdefense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This new ruling on the Second Amendment has been long in coming. Consider that by a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, and in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) in a very similar 5-4 decision, it struck down Chicago’s draconian handgun ban.
Yet, these 5-4 decisions had been hanging by threads, with lower courts regularly maneuvering around them to leave a range of gun control laws in place.
Chief Justice John Roberts had become unpredictable as a constitutionalist. Moreover, the liberal Justices’ dissent at the time provided a clear warning: The Supreme Court is just one vote away from totally reversing Heller and McDonald.
History has fortunately proven them wrong at least for the foreseeable future. But the enemies of gun rights will seek other ways to implement gun control measures through the back door and concerned citizens must remain informed and vigilant.
When we look at the other natural or God-given rights guaranteed by the Constitution, we see that all of them apply to individuals both in and outside the home. But when it comes to the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” — we have to admit that we have also moved in an authoritarian direction, contrary to the Constitution’s prohibitions.
We have been guaranteed the free exercise of religion, although this right was selectively curtailed by the COVID-19 lockdowns. We have also been guaranteed freedom of speech, although this right has been truncated by insidious political correctness and the mere accusation of hate speech, as determined by the Thought Police, Marxist academicians, and the liberal media. As for peaceful assembly and the redress of grievances, anarchists and communists infiltrating Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa have been given a go-ahead for not-so-peaceful assemblies. Thus, as in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
Prior to Bruen, the Court had turned down several attempts to challenge various Circuit Court decisions upholding restrictive concealed carry legislation in Maryland, New Jersey, and California among others. In California, the Ninth Circuit Court denied that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a concealed weapons in public.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch had expressed regret that the Supreme Court failed to take up the challenge of the California case and believed it was high time SCOTUS ruled on the issue of public carrying legislation and affirm the Second Amendment right outside the home. At last this issue has now been satisfactorily settled.
The issue of the constitutionality of bans on “assault weapons” is still pending. These semi-automatic firearms with military-style looks have been under attack on both the federal and state levels for decades. Despite their usefulness for sports shooting and hunting as well as life-saving tools during natural catastrophes, urban unrest, and self-defense against criminal assailants, these firearms have been so maligned that some courts are yet to rule favorably on their constitutionality.
On November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up Maryland’s assault weapons ban. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, banning the AR-15 “and other military-style rifles and shotguns.” Apparently, semi-automatic “assault weapons” were confused with fully automatic “assault rifles” and characterized as military weapons, and thus excluded from Second Amendment protection.
Interestingly, the judge who wrote the majority decision stated, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.” Curiously, it was precisely in Miller v. U.S. (1938), the last major federal ruling on the Second Amendment before Heller, that ownership of military-style weapons was specifically protected as a pre-existent individual right by the Second Amendment. This issue needs to be settled once and for all.
Returning to the Townhall piece, the article goes on to say that in his concurring opinion, “Justice Samuel Alito noted that ‘Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.’ ”
All freedom-loving Americans, not just Second Amendment proponents, should be jubilant about Bruen. The First Amendment does not protect speech quite as we thought. Political correctness, as we have seen of late, has eroded religious freedom as well as freedom of speech. When authoritarianism and tyranny loom big on the horizon, it is the Second Amendment that is left to protect all the others.
Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is Associate Editor in Chief in neuropsychiatry; medical history; and socioeconomics, politics, medicine, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. Author of Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002) and America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements (2019).
Fantastic decision. Now let’s go for Constitutional carry and reciprocity for all states.
Personally, I’d just do away with any permitting and constitutional carry agendas and programs and just go for a program and environment nationwide called AESAR (Americans Exercising Second Amendment Rights).
Problem is most states can’t agree on what Constitutional vs. Permitless Carry is. This is one of the left’s successful ways the leftists keep us divided.
I remember being a kid in grade school history class reading the Constitution and the BoR and thinking this is exactly the way it was. These rights were absolute to any citizen and any person, state or org stepping on those rights was committing a most heinous and unAmerican crime.
Imagine my shock a few years later when I realized the prime motivation for just about every person, state and org was to ignore those documents.
Kinda like when I realized that through property taxation my parents didn’t really own their home or property. The town was effectively renting to them what they already paid for outright.
That was probably the moment I became cynical, jaded and angry. Still waiting to grow out of it 40 years later.
No permitting requirements for training or demonstration of proficiency?
Then you could call it CAESAR (Crazy Americans Exercising Second Amendment Rights)
Sorry, I couldn’t resist the Roman acronym…
It really bothers you, miner, when folks exercise their human and civil rights. Too bad.
This all really bothers you.
I mean drivers ed training in schools and drivers license requirements did so well to stop car accidents. I’m sure the over 2 million injured in car accidents annually would agree with that, right?
Thats your concept, that training and license (permit) is your solution. Why are you anti-gun guys on the left so happy to impose some form of control and so afraid to lose that control at the same time… it must keep you guys up at night knowing you can’t treat the second amendment like a $2.00 hooker on Saturday night any longer.
The only qualification should be that the individual is not disqualified from the ownership or possession of firearms, i.e. the same background check called for for the purchase of firearm from an FFL. Although criminals will still carry, a “permit” (or carry ID would be a better term) would be a defense to unlawful carriage of a concealed firearm.
MINOR MIner49er. Have you ever taken any training for the firearms you claim to own?
“The only qualification should be that the individual is not disqualified from the ownership or possession of firearms, i.e. the same background check called for for the purchase of firearm from an FFL.”
That’s all law enforcement needs when doing a ‘Terry Stop’.
“Is the individual I detained here on the side of a road who has a gun on him-her-other a legally-prohibited person?
(I suppose it may be lawful for the cop doing the stop to call in the serial number on the gun to see if it has been reported stolen, but I’m not a lawyer.)
And if they are prohibited, take them into custody to talk to the judge at arraignment the next day.
A citizen should never have to prove they are innocent, it’s the government’s job to prove the accusation…
Should we also be required to demonstrate competency and request permission before exercising our first amendment rights?
“No permitting requirements for training or demonstration of proficiency?”
Are there any such requirements to exercise other constitutionally protected rights?
Are you suggesting that we require history and literacy tests as a condition to cast a vote?
the 2A does say… keep AND BEAR arms….
Most excellent narrative indeed.
I have always submitted the 2A minimally mandates the right, up to and including a moral obligation, to provide for the absolute private ownership of military grade and functional level and same options of our country’s basic military small arms, and the exercise of which is NOT subject to any sort of taxation nor registration. The lack of this in effect neuters our ability to exist, train, operate, and perform as the minuteman militia that won and ultimately will preserve our nation’s individual freedoms. It is the presence of tyranny only that seeks to repress and eliminate this.
since exercise of the second amendment by the people is not contingent upon participation in a ‘militia’ (not connected to military service), I expect it will be a while before the reasoning that “we need ’cause militia” becomes a SCOTUS accepted argument.
That not what I said nor meant.
Since we’re all basically the standing militia there’s no law nor reason for providing for exclusion and/or differentiation between such a civilian militia vs a govt.-employed and outfitted militia, therefore the division injected in to the 2A prohibiting equitable bearing of military-grade hardware, small arms, and accoutrements is unconstitutional and unlawful, if for no other reason bad in itself. We don’t have a Bill of Needs; we have a Bill of Rights. The 2A provides for our individual protections of both as a regulated militia and otherwise as private individual citizens that comprise that militia. If we cannot protect ourselves from armed threats, regulated or otherwise, then we cannot provide for the common militia when needed to respond as such. The “need” is implied without needing to be further specified, yet is provided for by virtue of a constitutional right.
that’s sort of what it sounded like you said.
The second amendment protects TWO rights. The right of citizens to form a militia AND the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
Excellent post GRA! I agree!
“… anarchists and communists infiltrating Black Lives Matter (BLM)…”
Burn Loot Murder wasn’t infiltrated by communists. The organization was FOUNDED by communists, and most of its members are commies. WTFU.
BLM obliterated and burned more cities than the Black Panthers and they were considered to be a violent and criminal organization. But somehow BLM is peaceful and has done no wrong? They are the most racist people I have ever seen, they do not want equality, they want special treatment and catering.
What cities were burned and obliterated? I understand there was violence and fires were set but burned and obliterated seems a bit of a stretch.
If u were caught in it and lost property to it, to these “peaceful protests”, burned and obliterated is an apt description concept.
Rhonda, did you forget Seattle, Portland, New York, LA, San Francisco, Minneapolis? My how quickly your Leftists forget. but after all that was done by your ANTIFA and BLM Stormtroopers.
when the bill for the damage exceeds your annual budget i’d say that was pretty close…
Burned two black owned businesses to the ground in Albany and looted, vandalized, and assaulted their way through dozens more. We didn’t get hit as bad with the arson but we were one of the first practice riots with a bunch of out of town ninjas directing the protests and leading the destruction complete with dumpster fires all caught on video by Fulton county news.
Yes, you’re right, Samuel Alito‘s intention was to take us back to the 1640s, my mistake.
“Samuel Alito reaches back to legal writings in 17th century England. to show that the right to abortion services is not deeply rooted in our history,” O’Donnell points out. “He cites Sir Edward Cook writing in 1644 that abortion is a crime in 1644 in England. They were still having witch trials ending in the execution of the convicted witches. And Sir Edward Cook helped English law define witches when he rewrote English law in 1604 to make it even more cruel in witchcraft trials. He wrote, ‘A witch is a person who has conference with the devil to consult with him or to do some act. So Samuel Alito is quoting approvingly the 1644 judgment on abortion of an English aristocrat who said a witch is a person who has conference with the devil. Samuel Alito is reaching back four centuries to use Sir Edward Cooke as a moral authority on abortion, a man who believed in witches and believed they were working with the devil and believed that witches should be murdered by the state”
miner, really? You wrote that drivel and put it out there with your name on it?
Desperation is not a good look.
MINOR Miner49er. All that goby gook has nothing to do with the Constitution. What matters is from the time that the Constitution was written FORWARD! If you want an abortion, go to Merry Ole England.
“BLM obliterated and burned more cities“
Could you be more specific please and reference exactly which cities were obliterated, I have some time this summer and I would love to go view the remains.
You going to leave your 200 acre estate there in WV to tour the country?
Must be a 1%er.
Should we call you ‘Rhonda’ now? Was that your coming out post?
MINOR Miner49er Did you forget Seattle, Portland, New York, LA, San Francisco, Minneapolis? My how quickly your Leftists forget. but after all that was done by your ANTIFA and BLM Stormtroopers.
“did you forget Seattle, Portland, New York, LA, San Francisco, Minneapolis?“
Really? Burnt to the ground and obliterated?
Just propaganda lies, that’s all you have but given the lower functioning level of your base, it’s all you need.
“I love the poorly educated!”
Donald J Trump
And you will follow Clarence Thomas‘ stated goal of vacating the Griswold decision, and the use of contraceptives will be prohibited.
And 12-year-olds who are raped will be forced to bear their rapist’s child, at the peril of their own life.
Because as far as the patriarchs are concerned, the embryo in the girl’s womb does not belong to the woman, it belongs to the man who begat it.
I’m sure that will work out, right up until a loving father watches his 12-year-old daughter die birthing a rapist’s baby.
I’m sure our women-folk will really enjoy returning to the 1850s.
miner. Your side made this possible. You made it acceptable to put limits on rights. Joyfully you and your fellows had no problems curtailing my human and civil rights. You still push to limit my rights. I push back and you scream like a banshee.
And you’re lying, mostly. SCOTUS did not ban abortions. They just made it up to the states to allow them.
And you’re being dishonest with your outrage. You’re terrified that the totally botch job joe burden has done as potus will result in your side losing control. So you’re ginning up false outrage to try and salvage something.
It;s all about the economy. 7 dollar a gallon gas, food shortages, the list is endless.
1850’s? What drivel. Hyperbole intended to scare the weak minded. Abortions haven’t been banned.
At least some of your cult leaders are saying it out loud:
“GOP Rep. Miller, speaking alongside Trump, calls SCOTUS ruling ‘victory for white life’
A spokesperson told the Associated Press the line was a “mix up of words.”
June 26, 2022, 1:43 AM
Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., said at an Illinois Trump rally Saturday that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a “historic victory for white life.”
“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday,” Miller said.
A spokesperson for Miller told The Associated Press the line was a “mix up of words.”
MINOR Miner49er, Close enough. You Leftists justify everything your ANTIFA and BLM stormtroopers do, claiming it to be a “demonstration”. How many building were burnt to the ground; how many people’s businesses were lost to the depredations of your stormtroopers? Obuma the Phony and his brethren Leftist Masters love you indoctrinated types that salivate at their ever word. The dishonesty, Leftist, is all yours. You don’t give a rat’s behind about anything but your control over the populace.
You got that right, the Anti-abortion decision is well thought out and consistent with the Constitution. The Warren Court was dead wrong in creating a “right” that never existed.
miner. In what way was this scotus decision a victory for ‘white life’? Explain that please. This decision did not ban abortion. And abortion has an adverse effect on the minority community far in excess to the ‘white community’.
Pro abortion is the side that is destroying the minority community one baby at a time. You know, the side you claim to be on.
No matter how you personally feel about abortion, your statements have a lot of, “You try to limit my rights, I’m going to do the same back to you.” If we’re all supposed to be good Christians around here how about we stop with stupid Eye-for-an-eye crap and actually follow the constitution and bill of rights as it should be, in that especially the bill of rights is supposed to be a list of affirmations of the rights that individuals have, individuals very specifically. That means we should not be trying to limit the rights of others.
So let’s be specific about a couple of the ammendments we all like to talk about so much:
-We should all be allowed to say what we want, along as what we are saying is not specifically for the purpose of causing harm to another. And if people don’t like what you’re saying, they are allowed to say that too.
-We should all have our own choice for how we protect ourselves, up and to the point that your conduct is more likely endanger others than ever protect yourself. That means that I think people should have access to pretty much whatever arms they want, it just means we should also be responsible human being about how they are used.
-No matter how you feel about the consequences of what other people want to do with their bodies, you should be obligated to allow them to make those decisions. If an argument against abortion is that every potential life should be protected from conception no matter the circumstances that conceived it, or the consequences to those carrying the child, then I think we’re going to have to put up with the argument that every bullet manufactured is potentially going to kill some innocent kid in a school.
I’m over people thinking that they can have their cake and eat it too. I’ve been reading this blog for years, and for a long time I’ve enjoyed your enthusiasm and conviction for the protection of the 2A, but now I can also see that some of your beliefs are just more of the same “rights for me and not for thee” hypocrisy that we point out in others.
Robert W. First I do not claim to be a Christian.
Second. I’m pointing out that miner and his type had no problems with restricting our rights. But when their sacred cows get roasted it pisses them off.
As for abortion. I’m against it. But scotus did not ban abortions. I’m against a lot of things but so long as they are legal I will vent my feelings but not impede.
I do still have the right of free speech.
Luckily I don’t give a damn about your, or anyone else’s, religious affiliation or not, and I ironically used that phrase to point out that I am sick of people hiding behind their beliefs as an excuse to oppress others.
I am tired of the general tactic of fighting extreme views with equally or more extreme views. Anyone who can pay any real attention can see quite clearly that it will not make either side decide to start listening to the other. So if you’re just trying to prove a point by arguing the opposite, you’re not doing anyone a favor, you’re just perpetuating the issue.
Don’t hide behind the SCOTUS decision in that they didn’t make abortion illegal, they just made it perfectly fine for states to make it illegal. That should piss off anyone here as well because that is simply precedent that equally ambiguous language in the constitution should be allowed to be completely restricted at state levels as well. Guess what, the 2nd ammendment doesn’t say that you should have the right to anything specific, so as long as a state can write ‘very specific’ laws to ban firearms, that’s ok right? The protections of abortions under Roe v Wade were argued under 14th ammendment protections, guess what other important cases were argued under the 14th ammendment, Heller and Macdonald. Eroding one right is just creating paths to erode others. And yes I do belive that abortion is a right. The words life and liberty are, again, directed at an individual’s benefit, not to the group as a whole. So how a person feels about what others do with their own person shouldn’t come into the legal argument.
On top of that, the SCOTUS argument specifically allows state interest balancing. That has literally been the bane of the fight for the 2A. Even though Bruen specifically says that the 2A is not a second class right, the court then goes and demotes the 14th in Dobbs. So you are praising them for shooting us in the foot, giving states new avenues through which our 2A rights will be suppressed.
Sorry Mr Robert Wallace, but “doing with your own body” is a ration of crap. A unborn child is NOT a tumor, or a growth that you can cut out on a whim of convenience. It is a human being. To commit murder of that unborn child should be a crime.
Robert. You brought up religion. As for reasoning with the other side. It won’t happen. They have an agenda and they are going to push it regardless.
Personally I believe that anyone that identifies as a socialist or a leftist in any way should be put on reservations in Nevada. That isn’t legal at this point but I will continue to speak in favor of it.
And condemning a woman to probable death due to complications sounds good to you? Condemning an unwanted child to be born into a childhood of neglect, poverty, abuse, or abandonment is better? How about forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that is gmedically guaranteed to result in the death of the child upon birth, allowing is to grow to the point that they WILL suffer in the short time which they will be out of the womb while they are dying? You wouldn’t take the opportunity to prevent that by ending a pregnancy before the fetus has developed a full nervous system to allow it to feel the suffering of that death? Do you get pleasure from the thought of these things? Do you think any of that is “protecting life?” Is anything of the sort “convenient”?
And my reply to Robert just got moderated.
So I am done for today. When I am moderated I drop out and give no more clicks to ttag til the next day.
RE: “Until this week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had not made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is protected outside the home. Now it has.”
Uh…The above was made perfectly clear centuries ago. And throughout the centuries Gun Control has shown itself to be an agenda rooted in racism and genocide…That’s chiseled too.
It has been clear by common sense, history, and Natural Rights but it was not made clear by the SCOTUS!
And it was not made clear to the Courts of Appeal in the northeast or the ninth circuit in the west, the latter holding that there was no right to a ccw and no right to bear arms outside the home.
It shouldn’t have to be.
For once, there IS indeed a lot of truth behind what Miner49 is saying. I have to agree the decision to overturn the previous decision is both not good but also not totally wrong. We lost federal oversight on abortions for two reasons; the SCOTUS is pissed that folks are screwing with their homes, and because those that benefitted from the original decision stopped their cause there and became complacent with the mere SCOTUS decision and failed to press further and have it codified. I’m sure they won’t ever need to learn that lesson again.
Of course, the authoritarian Democrats will try to pack the court citing these two rulings. But they have been trying to do this even before these rulings. It all depends on the midterm election results. If the American the people remain asleep and keep the Democrats in control of Congress, we are lost, America is lost!
The left got a black eye and a bloody nose and they are squealing. (Sounds like music to me.) We took a body blow this morning, but I think we can absorb that and keep swinging. We don’t have them on the ropes yet, but I think we may be backing them up. Sorry, I recently watched Rocky. Again.
The left and may-issue states are probably burning some midnight oil trying to come up with a way they can continue with their racism and continue treating people as if they are second class citizens and treating the second amendment as a ‘second class right’ requiring their permission to exercise.
To what “body blow this morning” are you referring.
Yesterday the Roe v. Wade reversal happened, not this morning. Is that what you were talking about?
Protesters voice their fury as Roe v. Wade reversal prompts abortion bans in some states > https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/25/us/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-saturday/index.html
Fairly certain he’s referring to the NRA backed bs being pushed into law. Rather minor body blow!🙄
Biden signed the comprise bill this morning before jumping on a plane out of the country.
Allow me to correct myself. After signing it he said, “I have a a helicopter waiting for me.” And scuttled away without taking questions. Again. Then he got on a jet.
oh that. I thought you were talking about something else in addition.
The AG of the great Commie State of CA has already threw in the towel and sent a memo ordering all granting jurisdictions to stop the needs-based issuance of carry permits. I hope Pelosi, Newsome, and Feinstein all finally sleep better tonight.
is there a news story for that somewhere?
Supreme Court puts almost all of California’s gun control laws in danger > https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/scotus-threatens-california-gun-laws-17260774.php
Why sure they sleep well, after taking their sleeping pills and washing it down with a fifth of vodka.
Our elected officials are nothing more then a bunch of alcoholic drug addicts.
Some day that island will capsize I hope.
“The AG of the great Commie State of CA has already threw in the towel and sent a memo ordering all granting jurisdictions to stop the needs-based issuance of carry permits.”
Now the game-playing begins. Watch how they will do every thing they can to slow-walk the process as long as possible.
The good news is, if California has a requirement for registering firearms, that is now *gone*, since that has been a recent development.
Serial numbers have only been mandatory since 1968, if memory serves. With no serial numbers for the first 100 years or so, there’s a good chance we can argue so-called ‘Ghost Guns’ from 80 percent kits are perfectly constitutional, thanks to ‘Bruen’… 🙂
…”Cut me, Mick”…
Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m going to be cautiously optimistic that the left is sucking wind and their shit is weak. We know it. They know it and they know we know it. That last part really pisses them off. I base my opinion not only on what has occurred I the last 48 hours, but also on the recent elections.
They have a very nasty surprise coming in 5 months, when they lose the house and senate.
And I’m gonna laugh, laugh, laugh, all the way home :
Yes somewhere but I deleted it. Basically was like a photo of a text message. It’ll turn up again.
Military style assault weapons.
Not even close.
The Second Amendment is exactly about We The People having military assualt weapons.
No style to it.
its not style until you hang a dozen different accessories on it all at the same time.
My wife is looking for a bel air themed cerakote job on an mp5 (sk probably). Gonna take a few laws here getting thrown out starting with not being able to cerakote colors that are not factory finish or “hunting camo”.
“Should Please All Freedom-Loving Americans”
And that’s exactly why they hate it.
“Chief Justice John Roberts had become unpredictable as a constitutionalist. Moreover, the liberal Justices’ dissent at the time provided a clear warning: The Supreme Court is just one vote away from totally reversing Heller and McDonald.”
To me, that the vote was 6-3 and not 5-4 was most miraculous. It probably won’t matter in the end, if they ever pack the court.
Reversing ‘Heller’, ‘McDonald’, and now ‘Bruen’ is high on their ‘to-do’ list the next time they hold the reigns of power (and Civil War 2 starts soon after… 🙁 )
“A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It can’t get any clearer than that!
And to the writers of the Constitution the definition of ‘militia’ was ‘every citizen’. Or, to put it another way, “We the People”.
No qualifications, no exceptions.
Same as with ‘arms’. No qualifications at all. The Second Ammendment doesn’t even specify that the ‘arms’, i.e. weapons, be firearms. Just weapons.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that!
Too bad ‘superior’ humans have a need to regulate everything they can think of. And the gall to tell the rest of us it’s for our protection!
“A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State… “
So the second amendment only applies to the “free State(s)” at the time of its ratification?
That’s an interesting thought.
“By 1789, five of the Northern states had policies that started to gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire and Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut and Rhode Island (1784). Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, while it was still independent“
Nonsensical straw grasping again, miner. You really are losing it because you are not free to restrict human and civil rights.
Absolute drivel is all you’ve posted for the last 2 days. You need counseling.
Hey, just speculating here.
Anyway, I thought you ‘originalists’ wanted to go directly from the text…
people generally supported the NFA when it was passed…gangsters were the terrorists of their era…but not the inclusion of handguns….doubt that it will ever be repealed…
That’s because nobody was prohibited from buying anything they just got taxed on a couple and full autos was one of them.
I was harassed by liberal teachers growing up.
Now, liberal teachers want to cut your son’s genitals off.
I do not think arming liberal women is a good idea. Let’s bring prayer back to public schools instead.
I’d rather pop a cap in such a teacher’s ass because doing so to save my child’s balls should at minimum be an absolutely sanctioned shooting and we’ll appreciated by all. I’ll have and join everybody in praying for their demonic soul thereafter.
There now … you and I both got what was wanted, and needed.
“Now, liberal teachers want to cut your son’s genitals off“
I would certainly enjoy reading more about this.
“Let’s bring prayer back to public schools“
Prayer in school has never been outlawed.
Students are free to pray at any time, as long as it does not interfere with the educational process.
Just like abortion hasn’t been outlawed.
I remember school prayer led by a teacher in my early school days. And the pledge of alligiance.
I simply sat quiet and did not join in the prayer. Took about 2 minutes out of my day. I did participate in the pledge.
Obviously, the permit scheme used by New York was always unconstitutional in consideration of Bruen but not officially so until Bruen.
All those over the years who were criminally convicted for the “NY crime” of exercising their constitutional right, and had to endure the persecution of the New York legal system for such and the fall out and effect of being branded a felon/criminal unjustly simply for exercising their constitutional right, those who are still living at least, IMHO those cases should be reversed and any record of such conviction including in NICS should be removed and destroyed and these people compensated financially at a minimum for any loss they suffered as a result including loss of a firearm and for the mental/emotional anguish they were put through. Probably not gonna happen though.
Firearms bans (e.g. the MSR, what some call the AR-15, and what the anti-gun and Biden falsely call a ‘weapon of war’ or an ‘assault rifle’), and handguns, and 80% ‘kit’ guns, in consideration of Bruen…
Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his concurrence…
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The MSR (e.g. AR-15) is in ‘common use’, and Kavanaugh reminds us that arms that are in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. But Kavanaugh is also telling us that bans on the so-called ‘assault rifle’ (so-called ‘weapon of war’) MSR are as likely as constitutional as bans on handguns, in other words not likely the MSR can be banned considering Bruen because they are in common use. The MSR is in common use and is the most commonly sold rifle in the country and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are in common use as well, greater than 70% of all the magazines (collectively) held by legal gun owners have at least 30 round capacity for rifle use and at least 15 round capacity for handgun use.
There’s no historic tradition of banning commonly owned rifles or handguns because advancements in technology increased their function or capacity or assembly means or accessibility. Under the test laid out in Buren its likely bans on the MSR or handguns (including 80% kit guns of these types) and so-called ‘large capacity’ magazines would be unconstitutional.
The case’s name is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc v. Bruen, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the official New York NRA affiliate. For those wondering where your NRA dues went, they went to kill “may issue”, thank you, and I hope the NRA does more in the future, while also absorbing all of the political hits from Bloombergists, Giffordians, and Bradykins.
If the NRA did that it’s most positive and the results speak for themselves. Also explains why the demonic leftists and liberals in NYC sent their prosecutors after them for such bogus charges like they did.
But what I want to clear up is did they also recently help Cave-In Cornyn screw us with this red flag bullshit that he and Biden paraded around like their favorite trophy?
“Bloombergists, Giffordians, and Bradykins“
Unfortunately, I think “Giffordians” is already taken.
They all are branches of fascism. bloomberg and corporate billionaires like him bought the left. It showed in choosing hillary over bernie to run for potus.
Folks that claim or belie4ve they are of the left now are marching to orders from fascists. Most are too dumb to realize it.
Did someone say “corporate billionaires”?
“On the Republican side, IPS’s Chuck Collins and Omar Ocampo have compiled a list of 63 billionaires, with estimated combined assets of almost $244 billion, who helped bankroll this post-election fiasco by giving generous personal contributions to Trump Victory—the joint fundraising venture set up between the Trump 2020 campaign and the Republican National Committee after the 2018 midterms to secure the reelection of Trump and his congressional loyalists. This group represents just a fraction of America’s estimated 788 billionaires, but its steadfast support has been enough to put—and keep—many a reality-denying scoundrel in office.
Here’s a guide to the Top 10 billionaire Trump Victory donors“
MINOR Miner49er. Who cares what Mother Jones (sic) says . They are all high on coke and pot.
miner. I know who funds Trump. It ain’t me. But you like to pretend that you’re some kind of edgy anti corporate socialist when in fact you are working for corporate billionaires and their drive to restrict our human and civil rights.
Tell me again who has the moral high ground here?
My other comment vanished.
miner. Trump never claimed to not have billionaires in his circle. He gets no money from me.
You work for your corporate billionaires in an effort to destroy human and civil rights.
Who’s the bad guy here?
Miner49er; “Samuel Alito is reaching back four centuries to use Sir Edward Cooke as a moral authority on abortion, a man who believed in witches and believed they were working with the devil and believed that witches should be murdered by the state”
Excellent point. Now what was written back then about firearms, based on what logic/reasoning (if any), and how did it change with the Bill of Rights?
Obviously tyrants from both sides of both issues are still going to screw both of these issues up more than already and as usual for all the wrong damn reasons and not change anything for the better at all.
Thought the two decisions were relatively straightforward really. Enumerated rights apply everywhere and states get limited if any say in limiting them. Stuff outside of enumerated rights is up to the states even if they want third trimester up to the moment before birth abortion like what NY and I think Virginia has (been a while since I saw the headlines, denials, and proof of it being an option that was thankfully rarely practiced). So why the drama?
Why do you see “drama” in a simple question? For me that’s all it was.
Lol sorry about that wasn’t as clear as I could have been, no drama in your question moreso in the background of why it needed to be asked to begin with.