Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

'Devastating': Supreme Court blows massive hole in state gun control efforts

In a decision with sweeping and grave implications for gun control laws across the country, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down New York state's restrictions on the concealed carry of firearms in public.


Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern warned that the high court's 6-3 decision—penned by Justice Clarence Thomas—"goes so, so far beyond concealed carry."

"It's difficult to overstate how devastating Thomas' opinion is for gun control laws," Stern wrote. "The Supreme Court has effectively rendered gun restrictions presumptively unconstitutional. This is a revolution in Second Amendment law."

The ruling in the case, officially titled New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, comes in the wake of horrific mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York.

The now-invalidated New York law required applicants for a concealed-carry permit to demonstrate "proper cause" and "good moral character" before gaining state approval. The Supreme Court's right-wing majority deemed those requirements a violation of the Second Amendment.

Several other states—including California, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts—have similar laws.


"This is devastating," Democratic New York State Sen. Alessandra Biaggi tweeted in response to the ruling. "Expand the Supreme Court."

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-gun-case-2657552881/
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Graylight · 51-55, F
If there should be one single sacred place and panel free of politics, influence and the temporary whims of the people, it should be the Supreme Court.
SW-User
@Graylight I find it astonishing that America's politicians appoint the Justices.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@SW-User How is it done where you're from? I can't imagine it's left in the hands of the citizens.

But yes, it's an inherently flawed system that allows biased politicians elect a lifetime justice.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@Graylight Yes or at least from right wing politics correct? Nobody cared when Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about her beliefs in abortion rights and Roe vs Wade.
Graylight · 51-55, F
SW-User
@Graylight I'm Irish but live in the UK currently. This is how it's done. https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@Graylight Great answer.

Graylight · 51-55, F
@SW-User Oh, yours seems a much better system. Not infallible, I'm sure, but as I say, this selection process seems to be flawed and therefor can't yield the best outcome for any side. Hmmm.

(Now I understand the username, which is an excellent choice for my 2 cents.)