By Rob Morse
Laws can be interpreted many ways. We seek guidance from the courts to know what is legal and what is not. The US Supreme Court has largely ignored the right to bear arms compared to the number of decisions the court has rendered in other areas. As a result, we don’t have enough decisions to draw a clear map of where our rights begin and end.
Now, however the court has issued an opinion on the right to bear arms in public. This case has redefined the legal landscape and has given us a few rules to go by. Let’s look at some of the unanswered questions to see if we may draw further conclusions.
The Court’s Bruen ruling said that states may require carry permits, but they must issue them to ordinary people who are not criminals. Ordinary people must be able to carry a personal firearm in ordinary places where people congregate. Licensing cannot be excessively delayed or expensive.
Now the ruling will be applied to other situations, other limits on the right to keep and bear arms. We first look to the plain text of the Bill of Rights. Based on that text, are the actions in question covered by the Second Amendment? When in doubt as to the scope or applicability of a law, we then consider the history of use when the Bill of Rights was ratified. We are to draw analogies from that period to the present day.
There are no longer tiered levels of examination or scrutiny. If the law in question materially limits the right to keep and bear arms, then, with remarkably few exceptions, under Bruen the law will be an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
Here are a few things to think about . . .
- The court said that the Second Amendment is a full and equal right, the same as the others in the Bill of Rights. We don’t yet know how to treat the victims who were unjustly prosecuted under unconstitutional laws that are now on the books. A handful of Democrat-controlled states charged thousands of people with the non-violent crime of carrying a firearm without a permit that the state refused to issue to them. Most of these victims were black and brown young men. How do we make the victims whole again after the state took their fortunes and years of their lives in prison?
- If the right to bear arms in public is a full and equal civil right, then why do I need to seek and receive dozens of permits to exercise that right as I travel from state to state? We didn’t have to do that in the 1790s.
- There was no general prohibition outlawing the bearing of arms in churches when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. State laws that ban carrying arms in houses of worship today are a clear infringement and unconstitutional (each church or synagogue, can, of course, decide to ban them on their own).
- There were no widespread and broadly applied state laws restricting the right to bear arms in taverns and inns at the Founding. State laws that limit the right to bear arms as we travel and eat today are infringements on the right to bear arms and should be unconstitutional.
- There were no widespread or broadly enforced laws in the 1790s requiring that firearms be stored in an inoperable condition, separate from ammunition. Those laws today are infringements of Second Amendment rights.
- There were no general prohibitions restricting the right to bear arms on ferries, barges, and stages, the mass transportation at the time. State laws restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying in a parking lot, on a subway, bus, ferry, or train today are unconstitutional infringements on our civil rights.
- There were no general prohibitions against carrying arms at a horserace or at a public amphitheater. Those were the stadiums of their day. Today, state laws restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying their personal firearms at sporting events that receives public funds are unconstitutional.
- In the 1790s, there were no laws outlawing the bearing of arms in hospitals. Denying a doctor, nurse, technician, staff member, or a visitor their right of self-defense violates their civil rights.
- The laws of the 1790s didn’t create a two-tiered system of rights where politicians, judges, and other government officials were allowed to carry in places where ordinary citizens were disarmed. The exceptions may be inside a prison or jail, a courtroom, or inside statehouses when the legislature is in session. Disarming citizens in places where politicians are free to go armed is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
- Citizens of the 1790s didn’t face broad legal prohibitions from bearing personal firearms that met or exceeded the performance of arms born by the military forces or law enforcement agents of the day. We must either restrict our military and police to using only the man-portable weapons we allow civilians to carry today, or we must allow civilians to carry weapons equal to those used by our military and police. Anything else is unconstitutional.
- As a coequal civil right, our right to keep and bear arms cannot be removed without due process in a court of law. Gun owners are assumed innocent until proven guilty and have the right to face their accusers and be represented by a qualified attorney. If necessary, the state must promptly provide representation in the form of a public defender. Like any other right, false accusations and malicious prosecution can result in a suit for damages. How many “red flag” confiscation laws now on the books comply with that standard?
- A sheriff of the 1790s knew the criminals in his county. Today, a policeman can check my license, my vehicle registration, and my legal status in seconds from the roadside. We can process an ID and credit card from around the world equally quickly for a few cents. That means it should take no more than a minute to perform a background check and it should cost pennies at most. Once we have done one background check to own a firearm, then repeated background checks to buy ammunition, secure a carry permit, or to buy another firearm are abuses and impediments of the right to bear arms.
That’s just a cursory list and I am not an attorney, but there are a lot of laws currently on the books that don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny under the rules set out by Heller fourteen years ago and now clarified by Bruen. That means there’s a lot of work to do in the months and years ahead.
This article originally appeared at Slow Facts and is reprinted here with permission.
Analagous, dangerous, unusual.
Qualify what you mean by ” in context with Buren and the common firearms we carry.
For example, the MSR (what some call AR-15 ‘weapon of war ‘ which it isn’t) according to anti-gun is ‘Analagous, dangerous, unusual’ in the ownership by the general public even though its not in their false ‘weapon of war’ context and is in common use.
I tend to think that the democrats, anti-gun, and left liberals are not going to miss a chance to make this as burdensome as possible through lawsuits and legislative actions. Its not going to be smooth sailing all the way.
California and New Jersey have already started being defiant and snarky and burdensome by doing away with their ‘may-issue’ requirements of good cause, but leaving everything else basically in place so they still have a defacto ‘may issue’ they call ‘shall issue’. Defeating any of those other requirements will mean lawsuits need to go to court. They will delay completely capitulating as long as possible and make it just as difficult to get a ‘shall issue’ permit as it was under their ‘may-issue’ junta.
They could also face jail time for being in contempt of court. The decision covers timeliness and not expensive. I am sure any serious delay will be challenged and upheld and backed by local and national firearm organizations. Eventually, perhaps the citizens of this Country will throw these people out of office for non-compliance and treat them as the arrogant people they are.
Do you really think a left leaning drug addicted idiot would hesitate for a second to use an AR15 to fight against traditional America in their their war with this country?
Would love to see them try and see the response they would get.
No more than a right leaning drunk idiot would hesitate for a second to use an AR15 to fight against the NWO in America in their war against that.
There are extremists on both sides, but that is maybe a small percentage of 1%. We don’t have to like it, but anyone has the right to believe any form of government is what they would prefer in the US(as long as the US is in power and not a foreign government). That doesn’t mean they have the right to take up arms, but to believe that we should run a poodle for president and vote that way is their choice.
The trouble we saw last summer was pushed by people that wanted power and used the rabble to try to achieve those ends. Of course, the left is stating that the Jan 6 trouble was much worse than the “mostly peaceful” rallies and looting parties of last summer.
If they get the power they want, you can bet that the rabble will be the first to end up in “re-education camps”(like what happened to Hitler’s brown shirts and those that supported Lenin and Trotsky).
We are the best form of government because we are free in the political sense,
You’re sounding crazy as f- right now. Try to do better.
Weapon of War is what the Second Amendment is supposed to protect.
Uncommon use or common use doesn’t matter.
You really can’t expect people to understand what that comment means do you?
“Analagous, dangerous, unusual” … what does that even mean in context with the Second Amendment or Constitution?
Even if the democrats and anti-gun had their way, “Analagous, dangerous, unusual” doesn’t even appear in the constitution or bill of rights as being restricted from the people in any way. Its pure anti-gun fabrication.
Could we say the same thing about speech the government doesn’t like, that its “Analagous, dangerous, unusual”? Yeah we could, so yes we the government should make up a term and apply it to speech we don’t like to set some sort of vague ‘judgement’ standard that we control to restrict the first amendment to control peoples expression of their first amendment right.
Lots of lawsuits, tied up for years in the courts. If SCOTUS takes up a 2A case every 14 years, many of us will be dead and gone before much changes. If current laws violate Heller, how is it possible they are still on the books 14 years later? What are the chances the lower courts will change anything because of Bruen? Maybe in states that are already gun friendly – CA, NY, and some others, no way.
The left has lost most of the lawsuits they have been challenged on because they blatantly disregard the law. That has caused a mass migration of traditional supporters to the conservative side. Three outcomes are possible: voters will get rid of these types of people who don’t obey the law, lower courts will enforce the Supreme Court decision because it is now the law of the land, Firearms organizations will continue to jump all over these cases and force them to comply.
I second that!!
Although most people and the media believe the real issues here was that the Supreme Court struck down may issue for CCW what it actually did is set a new precedent for future cases. Here is a Video of Attorney Chuck Michel of the CRPA and the Second Amendment Law Center give a better understanding of what will happen if we win the case which we did.
He talks about “history text and tradition” and “strict scrutiny” and what will be the new standard of review will be. This will be a huge loss for anti-gunners and now our side has to re-litigate all those bad 2A decisions.
I can’t wait for Chuck to take on the California AG, the latter being of the opinion that the State can still require an affirmative showing of “good moral character” before issuing a permit. The way the AG describes GMC is just another way of denying permits to people who are legally permitted to own firearms, i.e, a return to “good cause” under another label, and at considerable expense to the applicant. The AG really should reread the opinion, because I have no doubt that there was any history, text or tradition of denying the possession of firearms to people not convicted of any public offense. Yet in his letter to Sheriffs, the AG contends that arrests without convictions may be a basis for denying a permit. Pisses me off. (I am not saying I have a series of offenses, just that the inquiry should not be allowed. No disqualifying convictions, no denial. Period.
California already trying to get around Bruen decision and basically make “shall issue” into a defacto “may issue”
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/state-attorney-general-suggests-considering-applicants-ideological-viewpoints-in-denying-carry-licenses/?amp
N.J. Attorney General Acknowledges N.J. Must Now Go “Shall-Issue” on Concealed Carry Permits
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/n-j-attorney-general-acknowledges-n-j-must-now-go-shall-issue-on-concealed-cary-permits/
But like California, NJ is also trying to enact a defacto “may issue” calling it ‘shall issue’
“…the AG contends that arrests without convictions may be a basis for denying a permit.”
Yeah, that jumped out at me, too, when I read Bonta’s notice. Years ago, one of my former coworkers was denied the ability to drive a company vehicle by our insurance underwriter for the simple reason that an arrest was found on his background check. My coworker explained that he had been accused of r@pe by a disgruntled girlfriend, the cops arrested him solely based on her word, and he was soon released when she recanted and said she made it up to “get back at him for dumping her”. Charges were dropped, but an arrest stays on your record forever unless you can convince a judge to expunge it.
So…no conviction, and no crime was even committed. Yet he was deemed unfit as an individual to participate in normal activities.
No way any disgruntled Leftist politician or police Chief would ever abuse this. (/sarc)
There are thousands of people falsely accused and arrested based upon that false accusation every day in the U.S. . Once its found out the accusation was false, that arrest is never removed from state and federal (e.g. NICS) records even if the accuser recants or the charges were dropped or it went as far as court and was adjudged to be false accusation and the case was dismissed.
“…in his letter to Sheriffs, the AG contends that arrests without convictions may be a basis for denying a permit. Pisses me off.”
As it should everyone. 🙁
Since the SCotUS very clearly made the 2A a bona-fide for-real civil right, does a charge of a violation of a civil right fast-track through the legal pipeline?
There is no doubt that the anti-gun side basically got their butts handed to them with the Buren decision. Even in the individual concurrences and the responses to dissents every one of their major tired old complaints were addressed, and overall it gutted their reasoning even if there is some room to wiggle around and go back to court over something.
Count me among the Bruen sceptics. Not unhappy that Justice Thomas issued the opinion he did – it’s MILES better than I expected – but, frankly, it’s weak tea. NO OTHER “constitutional right” is limited by requiring a government permission slip. Do you need to buy a government license to go to church, write a “Letter to the Editor”, write (and PUBLISH, on the Internet at least) a political opinion or even what used to be called a “broadside”?? No, you don’t. Do you need a government permission slip to hire an attorney? Nope. Do you need a license to require the cops to have a warrant before the search your home? No.
ONLY the 2A is so limited, even after Bruen. While I am happy progress is being made, I don’t fool myself into thinking Thomas’ opinion made the RKBA a “first class” right; it didn’t. LOTS more to be done (including the examples the author cited). I have some slight hope that, since it IS different from the “may issue” vs. “shall issue” question, SCOTUS will actually rule on Benitez’ two opinions (both of which are up on appeal), and we will get a definitive ruling on such obvious questions as can a state “ban” so-called “weapons of war”? (Answer: Under any SANE decision, no they can’t – that was the entire PURPOSE of the 2A when written, and the ONLY thing Miller got right.)
But I hoisted a glass of Caol Ila 18 to Thomas, and I’ll happily accept what was given to us . . . as long as we all keep in mind that this isn’t the end, or even the beginning of the end, but perhaps, as Churchill said, it may be “the end of the beginning”. The Leftist/fascists chipped away at the 2A for over a century; it will take time to repair the damage they did.
And we will always have “useful idiots” like MinorIQ and dacian the stupid to try to impede our progress. I consider us fortunate that our opposition is so ignorant, illogical, uneducated, ahistorical, and generally stupid.
It would be nice (but isn’t likely) that the anti-gun, anti-liberty idiots would realize that “legistlating” limits to human ingenuity is a loser’s game . . . but they’re too stupid to realize that.
The Leftist/fascists chipped away at the 2A for over a century; it will take time to repair the damage they did.
There were many on the right that were part of that chipping away of the 2A, St. Ronnie comes to mind. There are many on the right, who in the past, have supported laws against against the poor and working class(and brown and black people) from owning, bearing, or using firearms. There are many today that still believe that, but will go along with 2A for all because they want the voting base.
To me, the decision should have ruled that all gun control laws are unconstitutional and that would have settled it, period. Government cannot be trusted to not step over the line and infringe on citizens rights. Government is like a hog, never has enough.
rt66paul,
You are not wrong. MANY on the right are no more “friends” to the 2A than Dianne Feinstein. I do think it is fair to say that OVERALL, the Republicans are SLIGHTLY less likely to screw you QUITE as hard on guns as the Dimocrats are. Yes, it is more about velocity than trajectory, but . . . I’ll take whatever slight advantage I can get.
I have to concur with this. The decision was good. Great even. But still not nearly enough.
All laws pertaining to the keeping and bearing of arms is unconstitutional. The most important part of the 2A is not that stuff about militias nor even the parts about the right to bear arms not being infringed. The most important part is the period at the end. There are no “ifs”, “ands”, or “buts”… PERIOD.
Yes, and I hope they will realize that legislating morality – same sex relations and drug use, for example – is a loser’s game.
Abe,
Amen. Part of the reason I’m not a Republican.
I see the Bruen decision as the first step in a process which will ultimately result in the elimination of “assault weapon” bans, restrictions on magazines, and perhaps even the repeal of the NFA under the precedent of Marbury v. Madison. The work has just begun.
While I would like to outright repeal of the NFA, I don’t think it will happen, (as per ‘Heller’ and the mention of the M-16 as being particularly dangerous).
The extensive ‘vetting’ will likely stay, but can be speeded up.
It can damn sure be improved, though. The tax is no different than a poll tax and should be stricken. The ‘Hughes’ amendment must go, and California, New York state and a few others should have their NFA toys, the same as Florida and Texas…
Would this change the length of time it takes to get a silencer?
It would seem that the left would absolutely be in favor of any license to carry. That license IS the background check and IS the registration of the user.
“Would this change the length of time it takes to get a silencer?”
Maybe a ways on down the line, in the immediate future, most likely not.
The ruling does open the door to challenging silencers being on the NFA in the first place, since in many parts of the world a silencer is sold over the counter.
Bringing that ‘Inconvenient Truth’ proof up in court guts the Leftist Scum’s ™ argument that silencers are dangerous in the first place. After all, the Leftist Scum ™ are all about wanting Europe’s gun control laws applied over here.
I hope some fine folks get going and explore that possibility, in the name of ‘Hearing Safety’, of course… 🙂
This may now be a very good time to heavily support the proven effective pro-2A organizations so they can finance those unconstitutional infringements.
Let’s load up the lawsuit pipeline sooner, not later… 🙂
So far I have not seen it addressed or discussed anywhere concerning the USSC opinion and how it may change or otherwise confront national reciprocity.
On the surface it seems to be rather clear that given a persons right to carry outside the home, that right doesn’t cease when crossing an invisible line on some street.
It may take a legal challenge but I tend to think national reciprocity is on the horizon.
As an example, I have a home in Yuma. If you drive down a road in Yuma, you are in California. I hold a Washington State CPL and an Arizona CWP, neither which are valid in California. It seems ludicrous that driving down a road could suddenly subject me to seizure of my property and arrest with significant costs and disability incurred.
“It may take a legal challenge but I tend to think national reciprocity is on the horizon.”
As Mark N. mentioned yesterday, it’s so simple, even a Leftist Scum ™ can understand it.
Someone either is, or is *not* a legally-prohibited person. If that person is traveling interstate, they need to abide by a state’s particular carry regulations.
There you go, 50 state and Puerto Rico carry, along with Guam (and a few others)… 🙂
I finally have a hope for the future. I am still slightly skeptical, but still hopeful. If it goes the way it should, CCW permits will be nothing. This will, hopefully, change the game back in our favor. I would not be surprised to see far more constitutional carry states. Wake me up when Hughes is gone. I want my giggle switches.
“If it goes the way it should, CCW permits will be nothing.”
At the very least, fees should be declared unconstitutional, the very same way ‘Jim Crow’ era poll taxes and literary tests were ruled unconstitutional.
As far as I’m concerned, if states want to require firearm training, the states should be required to pay for it. (Personally, I’d feel a lot better if concealed carriers know what end of the gun the bullet comes out of. There have been deaths where someone (falsely) believed a gun was unloaded because they removed the magazine, leaving a round in the chamber)…
A good way to handle that is make a decision about carrying with one in the pipe or not, then sticking with it. It’s better to have one chambered imho, but getting into a consistent habit one way or the other can help to prevent such issues.
My understanding is that Happy, the elephant (see prior TTAG articles) is quite upset. Had she won her case for personhood, the Bruen decision would have made it possible for her to obtain a CCW. Alas!
I wonder which hand gun she would have chosen.
She would have picked an Elephant gun. It was made just for her.
I figured an elephant would pick a mouse gunm.
A trunk gun
I once shot an elephant in my pajamas.
.
.
.
.
How he got in my pajamas? I have NO idea.
🥸
If an elephant can get into your jammies a lifestyle change may be in order. 🙂
jwm,
” . . . a lifestyle change may be in order.”
Why u be so judgemental about that elephant’s lifestyle?? Just because the elephat prefers to dress up in jammies, no reason for you to go all Old Testament on that poor, misunderstood elephant. Maybe that poor elephant identifies as a jammie-wearing yooman.
I see what you did there, Lamp.
Braced 4 bore. Just being an ass on this one.
SAFE….
The magnum, I assume?
i think this one ends up as the derringer model.
Technically she would have been prohibited from owning a gun. All those years behind bars…..
Mr. Morse,
Thank you for the detailed, thoughtful analysis.
I will step-up my contributions to any gun-rights organization that initiates civil suits against politicians who deliberately infringe on our civil rights. Let’s make it personal, let’s go after them personally.
I am not a lawyer, so I do not know how feasible this is.
This article brings up a lot of legitimate arguments. I think when you observe the behavior of the Left when their OX gets gored and they behave like crazy people it is time for Conservatives to push back and push back hard. I am wondering if the insurrection at the Arizona Capitol is going to be treated in similar fashion to what happened in DC. Insurrection is defined as violence against authority or government so what happened in AZ is clearly an insurrection as were the insurrections in blue cities that went on for weeks and months. Not a single Democrat politician was investigated for aiding and abetting criminal behavior nor were people like Pelosi, Harris and Waters who preached justification for violence ever punished for doing so. So for conservatives the response should be simple, fight fire with fire and lets get it over with.
It now stands to reason that assault weapon bans, hand gun rosters, etc will need to be pushed through. In some cases I think cases have been in limbo waiting for this case to resolve. It will be interesting in what the fall out will be.
We need to push to get these bans overturned. We know states like CA won’t go quietly, so they must be dragged to it.
2A rights must apply to all, so California citizens must be allowed NFA ‘toys’, not just the Hollywood prop houses… 🙂
It didn’t go far enough when states like California and New York are already coming up with ways to circumvent it.
This the first time you’ve heard for the marxist demtards?
Reminds me Hochul is up for pressing more gun control today so see what future lawsuits she sets up.
Murphy is already saying he will make guns prohibited on all private property by default and would require CCW holders to get specific permission to be able to carry on said private property. He’s essentially trying to make a CCW useless…
Anyone thinking “Bruen” settled anything will be seriously disappointed. “Bruen” only established a new benchmark to defend, or attack.
When a nation is as deeply, and possibly irreversibly divided, as is the US, union is impossible, in thought, or belief. The only remedy for such division is warfare. In this day, warfare conducted through elections and the courts.
We are arrived at a point in our history where there can be no resting, no respite from political and legal conflict. The threat is pervasive, 24/7. If the response to the threat is only conducted during “normal business hours”, we have arrived at a siege, and then it is only a matter of time.
Sam,
Yep, but . . . the Overton Window is at least moving in OUR direction, for a change!!
The “blue” states are already laying out how they are planning to circumvent Bruen (which is stupid, because that is creating a public record of their lies and intentional malfeasance, but then Leftists were always stupid).
The real work is just beginning. Expect Dem controlled cities and states to play many games. They use your own money (taxes) against you. They know that the process is the punishment. Our side does not have the media or Soros and Bloomberg money. This is a never ending task to protect our God given, constitutionally protected civil rights.
Nope. It ain’t over but look at ILLannoy. Thinks change!
Now if the State of Ill will join in the NFA. No silencers for you in Ill. I remember the debate a few years back about silencers and people believing that a firearm has no report all if you have one just like in the movies.
Our State really sucks.
“The real work is just beginning. Expect Dem controlled cities and states to play many games. They use your own money (taxes) against you.”
Turn the tables against them, demand the states pay your legal fees (and punitive damages) when they lose a lawsuit you bring against them…
MSM is at it again trying to make sure the public sees SCOTUS as the bad guy in Bruen.
I read an article on MSN and in that it says, in relation to Bruen, this
“…Thomas wrote for the majority, striking down a state law constraining who could carry guns in public.”
Well no. It did strike down state law, but the state law was not about “constraining who could carry guns in public”. The state law was about making law abiding citizens beg for the right to defend their selves, the state government being able to decide which law abiding citizens could and could not defend their selves, and basically the state law was imposing death and injury sentences by not letting law abiding citizens have the means for self defense against the very criminal elements the state facilitated by their policies and not effectively doing something about it to actually deter and prevent it. The state law was about control over its citizens, it was never about safety or crime reduction or even about gun control really and it was never about making people safer, and it was not about reducing violent crime because criminals don’t obey laws and get permits for their guns. The state law was about controlling law abiding citizens and it is only law abiding citizens the state law was applied to, and by the thousands over time the citizens of New York suffered and died at the hands of criminals because they did not have that one simple thing of self defense called a gun because the didn’t show a unique reason why they need it to live.
No, the state law was not about “constraining who could carry guns in public” but it did anyway to the detriment of its law abiding citizens and thousands of law abiding innocent people (over time) have died or suffered as a result and judging from the SCOTUS concurrences and rejoinders to dissents I’m pretty sure the more level headed of the justices saw what that state law really was too.
The Bruen decision was a decision for chance at life instead of letting the law abiding citizens of New York continue being the defenseless prey meal of the predator.
quote————-There were no widespread and broadly applied state laws restricting the right to bear arms in taverns and inns at the Founding.———-quote
Total falsehood. There were a myriad of anti-gun laws before the creation of the Second Amendment and none were cancelled after it was signed. In fact the anti-gun laws increased at an ever increasing rate especially in the cities right up to the present day.
quote——–There were no widespread or broadly enforced laws in the 1790s requiring that firearms be stored in an inoperable condition————quote
Again a falsehood. MSNBC did an investigation on pre and post colonial America gun laws and some laws banned loaded firearms in the home, and carrying guns in bars, churches and other public places.
quote————A sheriff of the 1790s knew the criminals in his county. ———quote
That is a ludicrous statement. There were 3 million people in pre-Revolutionary America and they were more mobile that most people today think they were.
quote———– Today, a policeman can check my license, my vehicle registration, and my legal status in seconds from the roadside. We can process an ID and credit card from around the world equally quickly for a few cents. That means it should take no more than a minute to perform a background check and it should cost pennies at most. .———-quote
Again largely a falsehood. It still takes human beings, not computers, time to do a thorough background check on a person and the entering of the required data is still far from being adequate and as well as complete as it should be. This is why it takes so long for an NFA check to be completed , not only is the manpower not available because of understaffing but the data often takes digging into before the check is complete. And Remember it is Republican’s that constantly refuse to let the Federal Government hire enough people to do the job and give them enough equipment to do a complete and thorough job in a short amount of time.
quote———–That’s just a cursory list and I am not an attorney, but there are a lot of laws currently on the books that don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny———quote
Of Course not, but the big cities and states will continue to ignore the Supreme Court rulings and when challenged will find ways to work around the Bruen decision for decades to come. At least until we get a liberal Supreme Court which will reverse everything the radical Conservative judges ruled on and changed. And remember the lower courts are still largely anti-gun , even the conservative judges, because guns are a challenge to their absolute authority over their slaves the people.
quote———-There are no longer tiered levels of examination or scrutiny. If the law in question materially limits the right to keep and bear arms, then, with remarkably few exceptions, under Bruen the law will be an infringement on Second Amendment rights.———quote
Again Right Wing fantasy and propaganda. Expect New York and other big cities to put red tape on gun permits which will be expensive, time consuming and require much training on safety and knowledge of the law, required mental tests and the release voluntarily of past medical evaluations, and even possibly any traffic violations, as well as banning guns in so many places that carrying one will be an exercise in futility. Guns will not be allowed in public transportation, bars, large social gatherings and all governmental buildings and many businesses will continue to ban the carrying of guns in them as well as in or around schools. This will leave the average gun owner with his coveted carry permit with the right to carry one in his backyard if that is not also banned.
Cool story, brah.
too long for me to read
@dacian
nice fairy tale. And like all fairy tales its not really true. For example, with this…
“Total falsehood. There were a myriad of anti-gun laws before the creation of the Second Amendment and none were cancelled after it was signed. In fact the anti-gun laws increased at an ever increasing rate especially in the cities right up to the present day.”
you conflate what came before the second amendment with still being in force when that right implementation invalidated all that which came before it as that in the Constitution is the law of the land. So they were cancelled after all.
And for the rest, just various parts of your fairy tale. History tells us its false, the words in the right tells us its false, and now the SCOTUS tells us its false.
I know all this really makes you angry that your anti-gun anti-constitution anti-life masturbatory fantasy has been spoiled, but hey think of it as just you being an idiot.
To booger brain
quote——— So they were cancelled after all.———quote
Typical far right wing response, “Do not confuse me with historical facts because they do not fit my far right political fantasy agenda”. You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot force him to think.
You are living proof of that, herr dacian.
there ya go dacian, making stuff up again.
Yeah, I’m sure the thought went through John Wilkes Booth’s brain when he aimed at the back of Lincoln’s head, and he said to himself “Boy, I could sure get in trouble breaking the law bringing this loaded derringer inside Ford’s Theate
Your logic is just Wow.
Should go after calif’s, idiotic safe handgun roster, inherently a handgun is NOT safe. No Reason whatsoever it has to go through some arbitrary permission to be sold.
I’m honestly a little surprised that hasn’t been challenged via the commerce clause. An arbitrary state law constraining interstate commerce shouldn’t fly. Wickard v. Filburn comes to mind and perhaps under prior constraint laws
There can never be a clear ruling from the courts, regarding the scope of the Second Amendment. Simple reason….courts cannot allow any civil, human and natural right to be declared “absolute”. (There be dragons, there)
Da Nang Dick doesn’t look happy.
I don’t buy the first point. Not sure why 2A people are swallowing the left-wing crocodile tears BS public defense lawyers are pushing.
Carry laws are unjust, sure, but you really think most of those “victims” are innocent Boy Scouts and not gangbangers?
The Limits of Bruen
The Constitutionality of “Shall Issue” Regimes After Bruen.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/27/the-limits-of-bruen/
“The Limits of Bruen
The Constitutionality of “Shall Issue” Regimes After Bruen.”
It should be obvious to everyone (except anti-gun mafia) that “Bruen” was half-a-loaf (which seems to the the SC tradition regarding constitutionally protected rights that are in disfavor of the Left). Like Heller, Bruen tries to “balance” things by finding ways to implement “common sense” infringements on constitutionally-protected natural, human, and civil rights.
I agree, this decision didn’t go far enough. It’s really just half a win. Either we have the right to keep and bear arms openly and/or concealed, as “bear” has No Qualifiers, or we don’t. That’s the Win we really needed, and SCOTUS didn’t deliver.
That decision would have removed all the hurdles States and Municipalities employ to discourage concealed carry.
“I agree, this decision didn’t go far enough. It’s really just half a win.”
Reality is SC decisions are political. Thomas had to write a decision that would gain a majority. Not one that was 100% based on law (the Constitution).
My original submission was an attempt at expectation management. Real life is that “no amendment to the constitution is absolute” (which is kinda interesting because such thinking puts the 13th Amendment at risk).
Bruen isn’t a judicial earthquake. It is the erection of a hurdle to creeping infringement of 2A, not ending the contest, but forcing continued disputes over limits.
Somehow, Bruen establishes that which it seemed to declare unconstitutional as actually constitutional; permitting systems.
Why do you suggest that no amendment is absolute? The amendments are simply changes to the Constitution. Are you suggesting that the Constitution is not absolute?
When it says that we elect the President every 4 years, well, that’s just a suggestion and if some president wanted to serve 6 years, he could? Because that whole “4 years” thing isn’t absolute? And then there’s that pesky “Natural Citizen” requirement for President. Are you suggesting that President Xi of China can run for President of the US? Or here’s one Americans would really love: President Zelenskyy? Because, you know, the Constitution isn’t absolute…
I have news for you: the Constitution, as amended, is absolute. There are no provisions of the Constitution, whether included originally or by amendment, that are not absolute. Provisions of the Constitution that were added by amendment, rather than included in the original version, are not second-class provisions; they have all the weight and authority of any provision included in the original form of the ratified document.
Summation; Bruen was wrapped all nice and tidy to appear to be a shot across the bow to the uninformed. When in reality, it is a ballistic missile sporting MARV kicking out 15 megaton thermonuclear warheads.
@Lamp
“The “blue” states are already laying out how they are planning to circumvent Bruen”
Just the way “the game” is played.
more legal challenges ahead….but now we have leverage….
“but now we have leverage….”
Is it “leverage” when you have to fight the same battles, over again.
First, defending ARs….any suffix number 4, 15, 16 or even Slo Joe’s 14….as not being weapons of war is ridiculous. Weapons of war, state of the art muskets, were what was specifically covered as the understanding of the 2A. Founders didn’t expect citizens to bring slingshots, single-shot spears, or atalas to war. They expected a call to arms with current arms technology, as good or better than the best opposing army. Modern Sporting Rifle…MSR…is catering to Leftist bullshit propaganda. Let’s call them what they are …..weapons of war….and clarify that anti-America politicians should be deathly afraid of them in the hands of Patriots when attacking Americans’ Constitution, Bill of Rights, Freedoms, Rights, Liberties, traditions, history, values, mors, et el. Sadly, politicians don’t seriously fear We The Little Peeps. (Actually, they do…ala the very WHY behind their gun control fetish….it’s not about dead bodies in schools, WallyWorlds, or Shootcago streets….it’s all about protecting their anti-America asses for what they have and intend to do to America….fundamental radical transformation. Thanks for the heads-up clarification, OBlunder.) THAT is what the 2A is all about. Let the enemy make the rules, live by the enemy rules, lose by the enemy rules. STOP AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY!!!! There is no “NEED” clause (or “Sporting Purpose” stipulation hurdle) in the 2A. But, for argument, if there were a “Need” clause, the very FACT THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THEM IS ALL THE “NEED” WE THE LITTLE PEEPS NEED TO NEED THEM, per “….SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” followed only by a PERIOD….no exclusion, stipulation clauses involved. Yeah, Slo Joe, that is pretty damn “ABSOLUTE.”
Secondly, buy an investment vehicle….stock, bond, ETF, any….at $100. The market value drops to $50, the loss is $50…yeah, it’s paper, until actually sold….your rights are paper also until you unsuccessfully attempt to exercise them….right not exercised is a right lost.) Price rises to $60, one does not have a $10 gain….only $10 less loss….still down $40. Must get back to $100….God’s inalienable valuation…until any gain is possible. That is the sorry state of affairs regarding the Second Amendment, or any right. God given inalienable “Right To Keep and Bear Arms” was at the $100 original issue valuation before America was a twinkling in any Founder’s eye. The 2A as written gives Americans nothing…nada, zip, zilch, zero….above, below, on par with the initial $100. The 2A tells government to “keep their damn laws off” We The Little Peeps’ INALIENABLE Right To Keep and Bear. However, ever since at least 1934….NFA 1934….Americans have, via acquiescence, sustained continual losses in the RTKB valuation. Lawyers and politicians tout how they have made “gains” in protecting our RKBA, when all they have done is marginally reduced our losses……all at their enormous gains in wealth, power, control, status. The 2A is BIG BUSINESS for all parties…..ala NRA’s LePewPew’s $1,500,000 annual comp package and $20K suits, et el……Anti-2A government Abusers, party of the first part;the Saviors pro-gun orgs, party of the second part”, except not We The Little Peeps “victims, party of the third party”. Same old politicians’ formula circle jerk…conjure problem, implement worse solution, wash, rinse, repeat…..Abuser, Victims, Saviors.
What did Jefferson say about rebellion? “What country before, ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” AH HA…there is the WHY behind gun control. Politicians don’t care about dead bodies in schools, groceries, Shootcago treets….those are features. “That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants. ” – late Col Jeff Cooper. Ala…they care about their own corrupt asses…..the Xiden and Clinton Crime Syndicates, Burn the Constitution Socialist Burnie, Pigloosi, Slummer, OBlunder, A Damn Shit, FineStain, throw in the RINOs, et el….
StLPro2A, you are one of the very few people in this world that, it appears to me from your post, actually understands the right to keep and bear arms and the protections of that right afforded by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Great post on each and every point.
“Shall not be infringed” is very clear.
Infringe: verb: actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
That is as absolute as it can be.
There is no “unless” or “but” after it.
Don’t tell me that the Second amendment is “not absolute”.(biden)
The English language says it is.
Sorry, Po’ Slo Joe. “…..shall not be infringed” followed only by a PERIOD sounds pretty damn ABSOLUTE.
So you passed the Federal requirement, an NICS Background Check, but in order to carry concealed, you must undergo another Background Check performed by an Unelected bureaucratic flunky with a microscopre stuck up your arse, and pay exorbitant fees ($165) for the privilege of their buggering of your arse. Oh and you get to pay for your prison rape when you renew every 5 years.
The way I read this decision,, that’s exactly one of the tiered hurdles this decision says is Unconstitutional.
This is not over by a long shot. New York is already working on severely limiting where a person can carry. And one of those areas was mentioned by a justice. Also another justice asked about someone working a night shift at a hospital and gets off at midnight. Now is the hospital prohibits weapons and provides no safe storage, then that person would be in the same situation of going home in the subway (one of the areas New York wants to prohibit) and walking home in a poorly lit bad neighborhood unarmed. This is the exact situation the justices were concerned about. It has already started but I foresee lots of restrictions placed on where and when people and carry and these restrictions will probably end up before the court again.
Buy as many guns and ammo as you can afford! IE the Ukraine as an example! FJB! The world will crumble if we ever give up our guns!
Where do you get it that a person’s rights can be stripped as long as they have due process? If that’s what you believe then you do not understand the Due Process Clause. The Clause grants no power whatsoever to the Government. It says that, when the Government takes life, liberty, or property then the person taken from must be allowed due process. But the government can only take that life, liberty, and/or property if the power is elsewhere specifically enumerated in the Constitution or common law (for instance, there’s nothing that says the government can imprison a violator of the Federal law; that power is assumed from common law). The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of Powers of Government. Nowhere in it does it grant any power at all to the government; it is, in its entirety, a set of restrictions on the Government. All governmental power comes completely from enumerated or common-law powers with almost everything that might be in common law actually going to the States or the people.