“The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney.
And I need to genuinely ask, what is wrong with that?
VOA News seems worried in,
US Supreme Court Ruling Could Topple State, Local Gun Laws
And the quote above typifies the hand wringing and bullet sweating, how could the Supreme Court put nonsensical prohibitive like AWBs and mag bans on countdown clock? Don’t they know that no credible study in existence supports their efficacy?
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruling expanding gun rights threatens to upend firearms restrictions across the country as activists wage court battles over everything from bans on AR-15-style guns to age limits.
The decision handed down in June already has led one judge to temporarily block a Colorado town from enforcing a ban on the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic weapons.
As it should, the Supreme Court additionally told all the lower courts to go check their homework as they affirmed, and as anyone with a lick of objective sense could confirm, the lower courts had largely been doing it wrong and merely aligning with the political whim of the region, not the constitutional rights of the American people, and waiting for SCOTUS to decide it hoping to pass the responsibility from their purview on so contentious as issue as ruling for firearm rights against local political pressures.
The first major gun decision in more than a decade, the ruling could dramatically reshape gun laws in the U.S. even as a series of horrific mass shootings pushes the issue back into the headlines.
Because we should always shape our policy out of fear and revulsion of terrorists actions, especially by implementing meaningless feelgood security measures that will no way manner significantly hinder the next motivated killer who possess a plethora of methods of injury.
Did you miss this mass killing in LA?
I bet you did.
Why? Because the woman used a car. The footage is horrific. She used a weapon of mass destruction (a Mercedes Coup, at high speed) to obliterate a family of three, their unborn child, and two women in a second vehicle.
Thanks to modern vehicle design, this was not suicide. The driver was only moderately injured. We scapegoat a single method of violence since it is the most logical, and “we” (as a group of concerned people who don’t like needless deaths) don’t “like” that weapons are a necessary part of life.
Gun control is nothing more than the thoughts and prayers Democrats continuously accuse others of, hoping that no one will be violent anymore if we just take the right thing away. It remains asinine logic when broken down, since we are neither removing means or motive, just a little bit of one of the more convenient means… sometimes… maybe… why would violence change meaningfully? We did nothing to address any of the motives.
“The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney.
The court battles come as the Biden administration and police departments across the U.S. struggle to combat a surge in violent crime and mass shootings, including several high-profile killings carried out by suspects who purchased their guns legally.
Okay, then what’s your new brilliant strategem of making murder more illegaler?
And given the sheer number of cases now working through the courts, a lot more time will be spent in courtrooms no matter who wins.
This is literally why we have courts, they’re doing their jobs.
“We will see a lot of tax dollars and government resources that should be used to stop gun crime being used to defend gun laws that are lifesaving and wildly popular,” said Jonathan Lowry, chief counsel and vice president at Brady, the gun control group.
Wildly popular? Popularity does not equal efficacy. Maybe you should right the laws so they pass constitutional muster?
Life saving? Prove it.
Articulate in any manner beyond that you think and pray that this rule is helping, that the rule is actually helping and not harming the continents who are under it. Please.
Congress broke through years of deadlock to pass a modest gun violence prevention package weeks ago,
Because legislatively it was as close to a perfectly safe nothing burger, padded by tons of funding for school security as toppings, that they could pass to ‘do something’ about shootings.
and the House voted to renew a ban on high-powered semi-automatic weapons,
Which they know will almost certainly die in the Senate, where they need it to die so they don’t get taken to the woodshed in the next election but can collect all the ‘we tried!’ dollars.
though that effort is likely doomed in the Senate as Republicans push back on firearms restrictions and say recent spikes in gun violence should be met with a stepped-up police response.
Exactly as Democrats need them to do for best political outcomes in the midterms. They need the political victory of trying, not the consequences of passing a new assault weapon ban, which back in 1994 had disastrous results in the following election cycle.
Also a stepped up police response, with better training and community interaction, is absolutely a solid step. But then we look at places like Uvalde and realize the police have their limits too and just printing more badges to put on the street is about as good at solving the long term issues as printing money and giving it out in stimulus checks was to staving off poverty, eviction and foreclosure, or even paying utilities.
I would love to see a breakdown of the dollars that went to sustainment vs bought someone a luxury on the stimi-bucks.
The Supreme Court decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need to get a license to carry a concealed gun in public, saying it violates Second Amendment rights. Several other states including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws expected to be directly impacted by the ruling.
Many of those AGs have already ceased enforcing their ‘demonstrable cause’ clauses in their law and are pushing towards the Shall Issue standard, but they will do so kicking and screaming the whole time. Meanwhile half the nation’s states have implemented constitutional carry with no torrents of plasma, water, salt, and protein of a red color washing over the streets.
Crime in those places pretty much stayed as local policy and cultural momentum had indicated.
Oh but there was a mass shooting stopped cold by a lone constitutional carrier where nearly 400 cops in Uvalde, who had a shot on the attacker outside the school, couldn’t do be bothered to rush the shooter there for over an hour.
In Massachusetts, for example, police chiefs can no longer deny or impose restrictions on licenses just because the applicant doesn’t have a “good reason” to carry a gun.
Good, bureaucrats shouldn’t have that authority. Ever. Over anything.
You should never have to justify exercise of your right to the state, they should have to justify its every denial in scrupulous detail.
New York quickly passed a new concealed-weapon law, but Republicans there predict it will also end up being overturned.
As that overly invasive piece of garbage masquerading as ‘shall issue’ should. The Governor and the anti-gun controlled city run legislature are just stalling for time to get their way as long as they can. It’s literally a temper tantrum against the Supreme Court for daring to protect the rights of New Yorkers to carry a firearm for so spurious a reason as their own personal protection.
Remember when New York had to panic change a law at the 11th hour over New York City residents (18 million metro residents) having to use one of only 5 gun ranges because traveling outside the city gun to ranges was illegal. Because reasons and safety.
Yes, it was that dumb.
In its New York ruling, the high court’s conservative majority also changed a test lower courts had used for evaluating challenges to gun laws.
Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas said. Instead, they should only weigh whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
So Justice Thomas said you can’t subjectively decide that a constitutional right can be suborned by a nebulous concept like ‘public safety’ or ‘the greater good’
That type of legal standard opens a whole mess of subjective issues when it comes to rights that don’t need to be considered as deeply when it comes to some like placing a traffic light or a stop sign or changing the speed limit.
By only needing to declare that something is ‘supposed’ to enhance public safety, and with no burden of proof showing that it meaningfully does while doing little to no harm, that is no standard by which to judge infringing a constitutional right, especially one specifically stating you can’t do that. A judge, one who will likely be influenced by regional political norms, merely has to shrug and go, “It makes sense when they put it like that, the name even says S.A.F.E. in it.” and a law will stand so long as there were no egregious and obvious oversteps by the state thus far.
“Basically, the Supreme Court has given an invitation for the gun lobby to file lawsuits against virtually every gun law in America,” Lowry said.
They were already doing that because most of the laws are utter rubbish and serve no better purpose than generating paperwork for someone to be paid to be annoyed over.
The Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to take another look at several other cases under the court’s new test. Among them: laws in California and New Jersey that limit the amount of ammunition a gun magazine can hold and a 2013 ban on “assault weapons” in Maryland.
Hahaha!
Where is your ‘greater good’ card now? The ‘serves a public interest’ was the ultimate Uno Skip card in the lower court pockets. If a case looked to be too much of a nuisance and/or upsetting the local political establishment by telling them this was actually infringement the whole time seemed unwise, saying the law seemed to serve a ‘greater public interest’ and then it became the next court’s problem when the case began its next leg in litigation.
Gun rights groups are also challenging similar bans in California, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.
“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that responsible and peaceable people across the United States possess by the millions. And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary,” a New Jersey lawsuit brought in June by the Firearms Policy Coalition says, referencing the language of the Second Amendment.
The ruling also has come up in challenges to restrictions on gun possession for 18- to 20-year-olds in Texas and Pennsylvania. And it has been cited in a case challenging a federal ban on gun possession for people convicted of nonviolent crimes punishable by more than a year behind bars, as well as a prohibition on concealed guns on the subway in Washington, D.C.
All of these legal situations have been roundly ignored by as many courts and politicians as can be counted, because ‘guns bad’, so the actual individual negative impacts of laws on the lives of the constituency got swept under the ‘greater good’ and ‘public interest’ rugs where as long as they possessed that label they couldn’t be effectively challenged on their merits and detractive effects.
In addition, a gun rights group is suing Colorado over the state’s 2013 ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, saying the high court ruling reinforces the group’s argument that it infringes on Second Amendment rights. And the ruling has public defenders in New York City asking judges to drop gun possession cases.
Not all those lawsuits will necessarily be successful. The Texas attorney general, for example, argues the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t affect the state’s age limit law, and more state and local governments can certainly defend their gun laws as being in line with U.S. history.
Good luck, team. Any law not having to do with misconduct and penalty for misconduct is likely to be under risk, as they should be.
Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, predicted that when the dust settles, only laws “along the margins” will eventually be struck down.
Assault Weapon Bans, hollow point ammunition bans, magazine capacity bans, excessive waiting periods, extra taxes and licensure schemes, all of those “along the margins” since they do not deal within criminal misconduct and punishment.
“Most judges are going to see these for what they are, which is overreaching and lacking in any merit,” he said.
Oh how right you are, Adam. Most gun control schemes outside of the don’t harm or threaten people with a gun (which funny enough is also covered under the broader don’t harm or threaten people, period) laws are of no value to society’s safe existence.
Backers of gun restrictions can also look to a concurring opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh stressed that the Second Amendment does allow for a “variety” of gun regulations. He cited the use of background checks and mental health records as part of a licensing process to carry a gun and noted that states can forbid the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.
Absolutely, and there are even rational arguments that the 2nd Amendment isn’t unlimited on the type of arms. But just because those arguments exist does not mean those are the arguments gun controllers are making. The AR-15 is absolutely the type of armament, along with handguns and shotguns, that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects. Individually portable arms useful for the defense of yourself and your community.
Now if we posit the 2nd Amendment does not protect your right to buy a M109A6 Paladin Howitzer,
We can certainly have that discussion rationally. There are arguments for and against. It also in no way shape or form means that modern privately owned artillery should be illegal to own, just that it is not an armament explicitly protected by the 2A. It could instead be the explicit duty of the state to provide crew served troop body support weapons and support to militia in time of need.
But it is indisputable that individual arms, anything I do not need a team and intense logistical support to effectively operate, are protected under the 2nd Amendment. I can show up with my 5.56 or 7.62 and a solid supply of ammunition at need.
But the Colorado decision handed down last month, while still early in the process, was a rosy sign for gun rights groups.
U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Moore, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said he was sympathetic to the town’s goal of preventing mass shootings like the one that killed 10 people at a grocery store in nearby Boulder last year. But Moore said he didn’t know of “historical precedent” for a law banning “a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” so the gun rights groups have a strong case against the ordinance.
Also… a total lack of evidence that a firearm or magazine restriction stops mass shootings. Looking at you California.
Encouraged by that decision, Taylor D. Rhodes, the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told The Associated Press that his group was considering going after other gun measures in Colorado, where Democrats hold the majority in the state legislature and the governor’s office.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Rhodes said: “The Bruen decision gave us a 4-ton wrecking ball.”
Every gun measure in the US from basically the National Firearm Act on forward should unequivocally be scrutinized again under the objective standards established during Bruen.
That is literally what gun owners want. They want objectivity, they want easy to comprehend and logical reasoning. What they have been treated too in return is anything but, but they’ll give it a title that says ‘This was totally logical, my dudes. We promise. It’s even in the title…’ and expected to push past scrutiny by calling it opposition and coast on emotion in the place of analysis.
In the absence of good information saying their policy works they default to feeling like it should work, because it is in the title and such.
And we’re right back to gun control being thoughts and prayers.
