US Supreme Court In Gun Owners Decision~

[cirelaw]

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-wo...k7y-story.html

[Major Tom]

What concerns me 1: no money to strenghten schools, 2: red flag law. If your neighbor doesn't like you and knows you own guns, will he turn you in to the cops with trumped up accusations?

[mrerick]

While we don't focus on political issues here, the newly passed law does impact our position as US based firearm collectors.

One portion of the bill passed by congress this week and signed into law this morning by President Biden addresses private sale of firearms "for a profit". The language of the bill is reasonably vague, but includes a carve out for firearm collectors. It makes no improvements for 03 C&R FFL collectors, but does permit firearm collectors to continue to sell guns privately. Enforcement will likely be arbitrary.

I suggest that US based members thoroughly read the sections of the new law.

Here is a topic by topic breakdown of the gun control that Biden signed into law today:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ion-by-section

This is the bill as is was taken through congress:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...bill/2938/text

PDF of the bill as passed:

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s...17s2938enr.pdf

- - - - - - -

A reading of the Supreme Court decision on NYSRPA v Bruen is more helpful to US gun owners. It's quite a bit more broadly cast than media reports would have you understand.

Justice Thomas in one stroke discarded the means - end intermediate scrutiny test for gun laws that Justice Scalia had incorporated into the Heller decision ten years ago. That puts many of the gun control strategies being pursued ever since at risk.

In particular, the decision makes it very clear that "Red Flag" ERPO laws seriously risk running afoul of the Sixth Amendment protections in the constitution. Laws that permit gun confiscation, but that leave the respondent at liberty are simply unconstitutional. The Supreme Court essentially chose originalism when it comes to the fundamental enumerated constitutional rights of the Second Amendment - indicating that it means what it says and as it has always meant since it was written originally in the early 19th century. Joyce Malcom, the constitutional legal scholar who informed Scalia during the Heller decision, must be quite happy the court finally agrees with this position.

The Supreme Court decision is at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-843_7j80.pdf

[sheepherder]

Equally important and especially sad is the repeal of Roe Vs Wade today. Setting women's rights back 50+ years.

[gunnertwo]

Marc points out a very important distinction in the Bruen decision. Using strict scrutiny on 2A issues will probably hinder prosecution as ex parte hearings prohibit the defendant from attending. Not facing your accusers is a violation of due process.

G2

[Pistol]

Yeah, saving babies is so bad.

[sheepherder]

Originally Posted by Pistol

Yeah, saving babies is so bad.

I'm more concerned with what is, not what could be. And I'm Pro-Life/Pro-Choice.

[tomaustin]

birth control methods--pills, mesh, condoms...anybody remember those concepts

don't start something you are not willing to finish.....

[Heinz]

Roe v Wade was a bad decision. There is no Constitutional right to abortion and never was. Read Alioto's well written and well reasoned decision.
The Supreme Court did NOT halt abortions. It turned the control over to the states. If a majority of voters in a State support unrestricted abortion, they can have abortion. But, if the majority favor restriction on when abortion can occur, if at all, they can have that.
The decision actually put the US back in step with most of the civilized world. I do not place Russia and China in the group .
Roe v Wade was an abuse of power by a liberal court. The reversal places that power back in the electorate, where it belongs

[Kiwi]

This misplaced anger at the Supreme Court

Their job is to determine if a law is protected by the Constitution or against the constitution
"The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" is in the Constitution
ergo the NYC law did infringe the BEAR arms and was unconstitutional

Abortion is not anywhere in the Constitution and was ruled as such

Not being in the Constitution means that CONGRESS could pass a law making it Federally legal overruling the States
Now someone would have to find some part of the Constitution that makes that law wrong.
But CONGRESS has not done so

Alternatively CONGRESS could submit a Constitutional Amendment to specifically add Abortion as a right to the Constitution. The wording of that would be problematic but that is what lawyers are for right?
But CONGRESS has not done so

CONGRESS is required to balance the budget - except where the existence of the country is at risk/under attack (WWII) they do not even attempt to do so

Except the right to keep arms - none of this has any bearing on the collection and/or shooting of Lugers

[siegersallee]

As the Supreme Court said, let the states decide.

[cirelaw]

I would bet none of the idiot protesters have read the actual decision! Hearsay only! Thats if they can read!

[cirelaw]

Our Second Amendment History Relevance~ https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...-they-mean-it/

[Edward Tinker]

Originally Posted by Pistol

Yeah, saving babies is so bad.

yes, I am all for it, if people would then give tax money to take care of them for the next 18-21 yrs.
Just 'saving' babies doesn't cover the medical costs, the food costs, the housing. I actually am not for abortion, but the laws are stupid and capacious. incest- sorry girl you were asking for it- rape - sorry girl carry it and then let it go for adoption - baby is malformed - sorry girl, its your problem now.

The man has rights over the women. Is this fair? Do you guys who liked the comment above feel its fair?

[Edward Tinker]

Oh, by the way, there is nothing in the constitution for the right to bare arms. Nothing, zip, nada.
The rights come from the BILL OF RIGHTS - which are amendments to the constitution. I had some idiot on facebook go on and on. He was wrong.
Prohibition - the right was taken away to drink alcohol. A 3/4 vote of the states could take away the 1st amendment, the second amendment. Yes, everyone says no way, but it can and could happen.

[cirelaw]

My Other Chapter~ https://historycooperative.org/histo...ond-amendment/ GREAT STUFF AND HISTORY!

[cirelaw]

Our hero explains https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/polit...mas/index.html

[mrerick]

The reasoning behind Second Amendment cases will change from now on as a result of this case.

Thomas specifically found that the lower courts were treating the Second Amendment rights as "second class" rights, and he found that unacceptable. The mechanism was a two part test which first determined if a law affected the constitutional rights of a citizen, and then applied a balancing test between the impact of that infringement versus the public benefit of that infringement. This was intended (after Heller) to be done at "intermediate scrutiny".

Courts subsequently abused the Second Amendment over and over again in their lower court findings. Thomas stated that this was unacceptable, and the Court majority indicated that the two step reasoning was no longer to be applied to Second Amendment cases. If the law infringed on a Constitutional right, it will be considered unconstitutional, period.

New York has immediately started scheming on ways to find large parts of the state "too sensitive" for concealed carry.