Damn that a pretty defining statement from Thomas:
“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,'” Thomas wrote in the opinion. “The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”
Except it's not a constitutional right. It's a protection of our natural right to keep and bear arms. We don't get our rights from the constitution or government.
Edit:
I always stress this point as I hope more and more people realize we don't get our rights from the constitution/government. Here is some text from the ruling in which, in my opinion, they state it more correctly (emphasis added by me):
(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense.
I believe that:
(c) The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, ...
would have been better worded as:
(c) The constitutional protection of the right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a protection of “a second-class right,...
Thomas does say in his opinion that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right.
i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ”
And here:
We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
Thomas does say in his opinion that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right, but I guess you did not read that part.
i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ”
And here:
We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
All the theatrics of the 14 RINO’s is null and void, except they outed themselves and may need to retire so they can spend more time with their families
And the law illegally impedes trade. Cali is done. The morons in mass are finished. This rocks. When we have 9 real judges, they'll need to affirm this without any objections.
You would think. I believe SCOTUS left the door open the challenge other restrictions like licensing laws, and was trying to keep the main issue concerning NY unconstitutional laws the main thing.
Thomas said this in his opinion:
That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Well technically it did expand specifically gun rights in NY that had been unconstitutionally taken away.
And Thomas does say in his opinion that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right..
i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ”
And here:
We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
Damn that a pretty defining statement from Thomas:
“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,'” Thomas wrote in the opinion. “The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”
🔥🔥🔥
Except it's not a constitutional right. It's a protection of our natural right to keep and bear arms. We don't get our rights from the constitution or government.
Edit:
I always stress this point as I hope more and more people realize we don't get our rights from the constitution/government. Here is some text from the ruling in which, in my opinion, they state it more correctly (emphasis added by me):
I believe that:
would have been better worded as:
(c) The constitutional protection of the right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a protection of “a second-class right,...
Thomas does say in his opinion that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right.
i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ”
And here:
We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
Do you recall of this is verbatim what was leaked? It sounds similar for sure.
I expect a "justice" to know better than to say "second amendment right."
Thomas does say in his opinion that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right, but I guess you did not read that part.
i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ”
And here:
We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”
I'd rather listen to 10 pairs of people speaking different languages than hear one British noble speaking legalese.
All the theatrics of the 14 RINO’s is null and void, except they outed themselves and may need to retire so they can spend more time with their families
Precedence set for next steps. BOOM. Pun intended.
And the law illegally impedes trade. Cali is done. The morons in mass are finished. This rocks. When we have 9 real judges, they'll need to affirm this without any objections.
And ah, Q said guns are safe
So did they (SCOTUS) just eliminate the revenue stream states make from licensing carry?
Doubtful, if anything they'll raise fees to "accommodate" the influx in applications.
Fixed it for you:
BREAKING: Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling E̶x̶p̶a̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ Restoring Gun Rights
You're correct!! Good eye. Thanks
So why the fuck we need a conceal carry then…. Shouldnt they be unconstitutional…
Yes, indeed
You would think. I believe SCOTUS left the door open the challenge other restrictions like licensing laws, and was trying to keep the main issue concerning NY unconstitutional laws the main thing.
Thomas said this in his opinion:
That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
ooooooooooooooooo
WOW! NICE!
Didn't expand anything. Blocked the Glock blockers.
Well technically it did expand specifically gun rights in NY that had been unconstitutionally taken away.
And Thomas does say in his opinion that the 2nd amendment codified a pre-existing right..
i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ”
And here:
We looked to history because “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.”