Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

[Caliber]

Well, then I see a conflict between the 2nd amendment and the 5th amendment: Do I have the right to protect myself on your property?

[DEB]

This case sets precedent that courts hearing 2A cases should use Text, History, and Tradition (THT) scrutiny and not use Strict or Intermediate scrutiny. This is HUGE because the liberal courts have been using Intermediate scrutiny to decide cases which (basically) allows the courts to rule however they feel fit. In addition, now we will probably see court cases regarding "sensitive areas" especially in New York and California. Because THT is required, New York (for example) can't just arbitrarily state that TImes Square is a "sensitive area".

The THT concept makes me wonder how 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 are legal in certain instances. For example, a movie theater posts these signs. Is there THT backing banning firearms in movie theaters? I would think not. And, federal law trumps any state law. So, does Texas 30.05, 30.06, 30.07 violate the 2nd amendment at movie theaters?

You are confusing restrictions on what the government can do, and the rights of private property owners. There is no THT for banning firearms on my private property, but I can certainly do it if I so choose. Even private businesses have the right to restrict their clientele, e.g., "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

I kind of disagree with some of what you stated. I believe even private businesses cannot just ban any clientele that they disagree with, especially in those areas that are considered constitutionally protected, such as Race, Religion, Disability, Sexual Identity. The 2nd has now been recognized as an actual constitutional right, unlike before. What I would like to see now, is restrictions on carry be removed from Military Installations, Corps of Engineers Property, Post Offices and the like. For Military Installations, it has always galled me that someone who doesn't have UCMJ authority over me can restrict my ability to protect myself and family. I do know that the senior commander can direct those who are subordinate to him/her, (those under UCMJ authority) but those of us wishing to go to the P.X. and other normal use areas, must leave our weapons home. Maybe with this ruling, this could be changed throughout, especially in those states where their citizens can legally carry. I know that perhaps now all citizens can legally carry, but I also believe N.Y. N.J. and CA, will do all they can to restrict all carry, make it so burdensome that it will by nigh impossible to do so.

[oohrah]

This case sets precedent that courts hearing 2A cases should use Text, History, and Tradition (THT) scrutiny and not use Strict or Intermediate scrutiny. This is HUGE because the liberal courts have been using Intermediate scrutiny to decide cases which (basically) allows the courts to rule however they feel fit. In addition, now we will probably see court cases regarding "sensitive areas" especially in New York and California. Because THT is required, New York (for example) can't just arbitrarily state that TImes Square is a "sensitive area".

The THT concept makes me wonder how 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 are legal in certain instances. For example, a movie theater posts these signs. Is there THT backing banning firearms in movie theaters? I would think not. And, federal law trumps any state law. So, does Texas 30.05, 30.06, 30.07 violate the 2nd amendment at movie theaters?

You are confusing restrictions on what the government can do, and the rights of private property owners. There is no THT for banning firearms on my private property, but I can certainly do it if I so choose. Even private businesses have the right to restrict their clientele, e.g., "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

I kind of disagree with some of what you stated. I believe even private businesses cannot just ban any clientele that they disagree with, especially in those areas that are considered constitutionally protected, such as Race, Religion, Disability, Sexual Identity. The 2nd has now been recognized as an actual constitutional right, unlike before. What I would like to see now, is restrictions on carry be removed from Military Installations, Corps of Engineers Property, Post Offices and the like. For Military Installations, it has always galled me that someone who doesn't have UCMJ authority over me can restrict my ability to protect myself and family. I do know that the senior commander can direct those who are subordinate to him/her, (those under UCMJ authority) but those of us wishing to go to the P.X. and other normal use areas, must leave our weapons home. Maybe with this ruling, this could be changed throughout, especially in those states where their citizens can legally carry. I know that perhaps now all citizens can legally carry, but I also believe N.Y. N.J. and CA, will do all they can to restrict all carry, make it so burdensome that it will by nigh impossible to do so.

There are those in our conservative group who supported the baker who refused to make a wedding cake. Using that same logic, he should also be allowed to refuse firearm carry. IMO, any private business that is "open to the public" derives certain protections and benefits from the government (trademark protection, licensing, etc.) and therefore should not be allowed to restrict any trade.

Your examples of military bases would not apply because they are not open to the public, and you agreed to terms and conditions when you signed up, retired military, whatever.

I agree about the ACOE, because their lands are "open to the public".

[The Annoyed Man]

Texas big city mayors are selling us down the river.

[K.Mooneyham]

Texas big city mayors are selling us down the river.

So, I'll ask the question I always ask: HOW do they physically plan on enforcing those things in any meaningful manner, in the State of Texas? I keep hearing people say things like the police will search every vehicle they pull over (and that will have to be every vehicle), and if they find an AR/30-round magazine/etc, immediately pistol-whip and perhaps shoot that person (hyperbole to make a point). I really don't see that happening in the State of Texas, even if those crooked leftwing mayors somehow magically got those things into law. All they would do is put more useless garbage onto the books that would SOMETIMES be randomly used against SOME folks in the big cities. It would create another divide between rural and urban folks, and otherwise be ignored.

[The Annoyed Man]

Texas big city mayors are selling us down the river.

So, I'll ask the question I always ask: HOW do they physically plan on enforcing those things in any meaningful manner, in the State of Texas? I keep hearing people say things like the police will search every vehicle they pull over (and that will have to be every vehicle), and if they find an AR/30-round magazine/etc, immediately pistol-whip and perhaps shoot that person (hyperbole to make a point). I really don't see that happening in the State of Texas, even if those crooked leftwing mayors somehow magically got those things into law. All they would do is put more useless garbage onto the books that would SOMETIMES be randomly used against SOME folks in the big cities. It would create another divide between rural and urban folks, and otherwise be ignored.

Ultimately, I think it’s going to get them booted out of office.

[pt145ss]

So, what does this do in terms of Texans carrying in places like New York? They confirmed that the 2nd amendment covers carrying outside the home for self defense (among other reasons). I think reasonable people would agree that self defense and the second amendment do not stop when crossing state lines.

Any thoughts on this?

[Paladin]

So, what does this do in terms of Texans carrying in places like New York? They confirmed that the 2nd amendment covers carrying outside the home for self defense (among other reasons). I think reasonable people would agree that self defense and the second amendment do not stop when crossing state lines.

Any thoughts on this?

It is a great question. I imagine that the criminals in power in New York will do everything they can to fight reciprocity. But with the recent Supreme Court decisions the battle will almost certainly be fought out in court over a period of many years. In the end the courts will have to force NY to follow the Constitution.

[The Annoyed Man]

So, what does this do in terms of Texans carrying in places like New York? They confirmed that the 2nd amendment covers carrying outside the home for self defense (among other reasons). I think reasonable people would agree that self defense and the second amendment do not stop when crossing state lines.

Any thoughts on this?

I don’t agree with states that will do this, but I think that what’s likely to happen is that they:

A. WILL NOT issue non-resident licenses; and

B. WILL NOT establish reciprocity with other states.

Unless a national reciprocity law is passed, it’s an individual sovereign state's right to decide for itself whether or not it will enter into a reciprocity agreement with another state. As long as they’re going to make it hard for their own residents to get a carry license, they’re certainly not going to allow a bunch of "cowboys" from the free states to carry there.

[pt145ss]

Interesting.

Being from a different state does not mean we give up the right to free speech or give up our 4th amendment rights.

[srothstein]

Interesting.

Being from a different state does not mean we give up the right to free speech or give up our 4th amendment rights.

I agree. I think the next case will be about license at all. The concept of a license to exercise a right does not meet with Thomas's historical analysis specified as the way to check the 2A cases. The next case may be about reciprocity, but it would be just as easy to argue no license anywhere, constitutional carry for all.

[PriestTheRunner]

Interesting.

Being from a different state does not mean we give up the right to free speech or give up our 4th amendment rights.

I agree. I think the next case will be about license at all. The concept of a license to exercise a right does not meet with Thomas's historical analysis specified as the way to check the 2A cases. The next case may be about reciprocity, but it would be just as easy to argue no license anywhere, constitutional carry for all.

I also agree. There are several examples of it being unconstitutional to charge a fee or have a license in order to exercise an in-specific constitutional right.

Including: like Murdock v. Pennsylvania :: 319 US 105 (1943)?
"A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion"


Or MUCH more recently: BARRY BAUER, v. XAVIER BECERRA
"Across constitutional rights, the courts
have consistently forbidden the use of special
fees and taxes on constitutionally protected
conduct to generate general revenue"

Or at one of the earliest decisions affecting the scope of constitutional rights:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
"that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."


Constitutional Carry has been, should always have been, and should continue to be the CONSTITUTIONAL basis of carry in the US. The amount of contention here and on other forums to constitutional carry has been shown to be without merit but also we have to examine the fact that it never should have been restricted. "The first Texas law against concealed and open carry was “An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871, Ch. 34, §1, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25” passed as part of the Reconstruction. That law was not substantially modified until 1995." https://txhga.org/texas-ltc-information ... gun-carry/

I also consider it unconstitutional to require licenses or fees for other constitutionally protected rights (such as permits for protests or public speaking....) provided that the manner in which such actions take place do not interfere with the rights of others (IE blocking roadways or substantially blocking paths).

Its going to be very interesting seeing how this plays out, but I really expect that we will see the left try to "normalize" packing the supreme court and then try (or succeed) in doing so.

[Paladin]

Texas big city mayors are selling us down the river.

I my mind, the mayors that allowed rioting in 2020 already sold us down the river, but I can agree with the section about mental health. Mental-health in Texas has been under-resourced for quite some time. There are better and more cost efficient ways of handing mental health than locking them up in jail or putting them on a revolving trip between jail, the emergency room, and a homeless shelter.

[Paladin]

High level summary of the implications: 6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Decision Protecting Americans’ Right To Self-Defense

[Rafe]

Poll reported on Fox News a few minutes ago, from a poll of registered voters conducted by Siena College Research Institute:

Voters in New York state supposedly say, by 76% to 14%, that there should be a new state law requiring a permit to buy a semi-automatic rifle...a law that includes a minimum age of 21, passing a background check, and taking a safety course.

At 79% to 15%, the poll showed that voters want to see the Supreme Court uphold New York’s existing, decades-old law requiring a license to carry a concealed handgun.

“More than three-quarters of voters think the new law – requiring a permit to obtain a semi-automatic rifle going forward – will be good for New York, including at least 65% of every demographic group. It’s worth noting that 67% of Republicans and 73% of gun owners (about one-fifth of all voters) think the law will be good,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg.

“Likewise, more than three-quarters of voters want the Supreme Court to uphold New York’s decades-old law requiring a license to carry a concealed handgun, including 72% of gun owners and 79% of Republicans (even more than the 77% of independents),” Greenberg said. “By a smaller, 58-24% margin, voters say outlawing body or armored vests except for law enforcement will be good for the state. Two-thirds of Democrats support the ban, as do 53% of independents, 50% of Republicans, and 54% of gun owners.”

Whew. I've known a number of people from New York state who did not live in the major urban areas. A lot of them hunters and sport shooters. It's very difficult for me to believe that the majority of people polled were not from New York City.

Check the methodology described at the bottom of the page linked above. They did not describe geographic separation of the 802 respondents, but they did note that selection was "weighted to reflect known population patterns." And, interestingly, telephone calls were "initiated by asking for the youngest person in the household."