Just a reminder -This bipartisan gun thing is now probably unconstitutional under Bruen

We didn't have permits, red flag laws, or boyfriend loopholes in 1789.

Let's hope Roberts, Kavanaugh and Alito will remember they only concurred if this passes and goes to for a challenge under Thomas' public interest is irrelevant Bruen Standard.

Honestly, I doubt it would, but I'm not a judge pretending to rewrite history to justify a political agenda or make the entire rest of the Constitution subservient to a non-enumerated right to self defense.

When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/23/congress-bipartisan-gun-package-00041701

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MistyCee

@Fukfacewillie Thomas is trying really hard to be Scalia, but he's not, and for that matter, there's no Ginsburg around to really effectively call him out, although they tried their best.

You can pull out pieces and parts, like "sensitive places" and "shall issue" vs "may issue", and the inarticulated prior restraint thing, and theres squirly language to make the outcome determinative historical analysis seem a little less idiotic, but once a court decides the right to self defense is implicated, all other rights and public interests are immaterial.

It fits with the abortion thing in terms of "originalism", but I think this piece of dreck opinion will hurt the country far worse if it's not ignored by lower courts and legislatures or relatively swiftly "limited" by a subsequent opinion.

I'm struggling at the moment to recall a worse SCOTUS decision, but this one seems way worse than Korematsu, Dred Scott, Lochner or the Insular cases.

Honestly, this "majority" opinion looks like something deliberately aimed at not only stifling progress, but also destroying a primary reason we have any government, i.e., protecting citizens from other citizens.

I do get, by the way, that that may be the point, and that deconstructing government and emasculating "liberal" notions like the public good and rights of others may be the goal.

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@MistyCee People will be able to walk around Los Angeles, where I live, with loaded AR-15s because of this clause in an 18th Century document. The Court has determined the Constitution to be perfect in an almost religious way. There is no way to remedy this -- just hope you don't get shot.

MistyCee

@Fukfacewillie Whoa. I agree with the idea that Thomas et al don't seem to give a flying f about people getting shot and said that human lives are not their responsibility, but the whole argument is carefully constructed about distinctions between concealed carry, long guns, and 18th century arms.

The end result may be the same, i.e., the right to self defense primes any "right not to be killed," or government efforts to protect your right in that regard, but that's not spelled out like the "right to self defense" supposedly is in the 2nd Amendment.

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@MistyCee The only means to regulate guns is now repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which will never happen. I don't even see self-defense against acts of criminality as part of a "well regulated militia" which surely was about national defense. Time to move...

MistyCee

@Fukfacewillie I'm going to sleep on it, but I'm lazy and naive.

TexChik · F

@MistyCee You are claiming things that just are not true. Libs could care less about the public good. They only care about power and wealth.

MistyCee

@TexChik I didn't say they did. What I said was the public good doesn't factor into Thomas' test.

Honestly, if I wanted to try to defend this thing, I would suggest something like a natural rights theory, where the right to self defense might be god-given, and thus at least presumptively good and of itself, maybe sprinkling in some bullshit about the divine inspiration of the Framers to make it sound better, and then try to make a case for where it shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals.

If I did that, though, I think you'd be on more solid ground for accusing me of stuff, though.

I didn't say that libs care about the public good, and I didn't say anything about power and wealth.

TexChik · F

@MistyCee The founders said that keeping arms kept tyranny at bay. They were not concerned with prowlers; they were concerned with politicians who loved power and wealth above all things...AKA democrat socialists

TexChik · F

@MistyCee No you didnt say what we all know. Libs only want power and wealth. This country was founded as a result of fighting tyranny and it has been our biggest fear that tyranny would return. Its seem it has and scotus agrees.

MistyCee

@TexChik Who said anything about prowlers?

Look at Thomas' opinion and see where he talked about Socialists, liberals, Marxists or even really about tyranny. I don't remember seeing it, and I doubt it was there, because the guy isn't that smart, nor is he willing to condemn authoritarianism, or the"tyranny of the majority" which is is where Calhoun screwed up and modern Republicans don't seem to get.

MistyCee

@TexChik

MistyCee No you didnt say what we all know. Libs only want power and wealth. This country was founded as a result of fighting tyranny and it has been our biggest fear that tyranny would return. Its seem it has and scotus agrees.

But that's not what SCOTUS said.

Frankly, if Thomas had written it that way, I'd feel better about the result, but I kind of think he didn't, because, I don't think he wanted to go there.

A majority of Americans don't really want to live in a place where might makes right, and innocents and kids lives dont matter. And, whether they're foolish or not for not seeing it, I don't think the majority of Americans really

TexChik · F

@MistyCee Creepy joe during the obama attempt to take down the 2A. He told them they needed shot guns and not hand guns or ARs and that women just needed to crap their pants to discourage rapists.

TexChik · F

@MistyCee Might does make right, because libs do not want to obey the law. They have defunded the police to make it easier. After a criminal gets 5 or 6 no cash bails for various crimes and finally shoots someone, the libs scream that they need more gun control. We need law and order and that means punishing the lawbreakers ...even liberals.

PDXNative1986 · 36-40, MVIP

@MistyCee Imagine wanting to be that piece of shit Scalia. Fucking monster. Not even a HUMAN, MONSTER. ENTIRELY. There was NOTHING human about Scalia, just a a sadistic monster through and through.

MistyCee

@PDXNative1986 Scalia, whom I met and have heard speak is not nearly the monster you portray him as, and was, imo, even though I often disagreed with him, a really influential and effective Justice.

Thomas, on the other hand, has been pretty pathetic and forgettable for decades, and is now showing why is was better when he kept quiet and let the smarter folks ask questions.

PDXNative1986 · 36-40, MVIP

@MistyCee The problem with Scalia is that he was effective. Not a good thing when your view is as vile as his was. Would have been better for the whole country if he had been feckless. he was pure poison.

I don't particularly care that he was cunning and capable of getting his way, When you want the things Scalia wanted its better that you don't.

I couldn't possibly care less about how EFFECTIVE a leader is, if what they are effective at getting is bad for the country. We'd all be better for it if he'd failed.

TexChik · F

@MistyCee Thomas, as you might recall, was brutalized by biden during his confirmation. biden went above and beyond the boundaries of decency to try and force him to with draw. Thomas withstood savage racism and classless attacks to become a justice on the supreme court. I dont pretend for one second that his horrible treatment by biden and the libs did not affect the way he approached this case. But one thing is clear... the second amendment is now set in stone again and mass shootings in this country will decline now that there is no chance of gaining any traction with the lib desire to disarm America, just like they did when obama got a resounding defeat in congress.

Given this new affirmation, I suspect the 10 rinos in the senate that chose to vote for the lib gun control bill will live to regret their decision to part with the party because they are now on record as supporting what is likely an unconstitutional bill

PDXNative1986 · 36-40, MVIP

@MistyCee [media=https://youtu.be/0aXczS1t5EM] far more important to actually have the right goals than to be GOOD At getting your way.

[media=https://youtu.be/9JoThPbHlhQ]

PDXNative1986 · 36-40, MVIP

@MistyCee He was one of the ones who sold this country out to the highest. bidder in citizens united vs the federal elections comission. Tell me again that him being EFFECTIVE was a merit in his favor? Him being FECKLESS and ineffective would have SAVED us from the DAMAGE he would unleash and we'd ALL BETTER for it.

I'm a HARDCORE consequentalist and I honestly think if someone had SHOT That gas bag and killed him before he could do the damage he did the consequneces would have been GOOD. THE WHOLE NATION Would be beter for it.

So I couldn't care less about "Effective."

Not only am I glad he's dead I'm PROUD to be glad he's dead.

[media=https://youtu.be/ex8FHm6E3JM]