Bad went to worse in 2020 with the pandemic and worse went to terrible with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We all knew, and then we all saw, that the Republicans were going to get a new justice in under the wire despite all of their machinations and policy to the contrary after the death of Antonin Scalia. We knew it and we were right. Now, we may very well see what a Supreme Court stacked 6-3 with conservatives does.
If you’re now just tuning in, a constitutional right to concealed carry may be on the horizon. SCOTUS will hear a case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. Vox writer Ian Millhiser says the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which would come in about a year from now, “could transform the judiciary’s understanding of the Second Amendment and lay waste to many of the nation’s gun laws.” That could lead to unlimited concealed carry and that is the NRA’s dream come true. The law as it stands now says you have to show “proper cause” to carry a concealed weapon, you can’t do it just because you want to. Experts fear that this Supreme Court could change the law, leading to a “guns apocalypse.”
That this expansion of gun rights is even being considered at a time when we’ve clearly hit a tipping point with guns on the street and mass shootings are in the news more than they’re out of it is stupefying.
Given the views of Trump’s justices, this case likely furthers the jurisprudence of making it easier to have a gun than a car, with no training, in an environment where mass shootings frequently take lives. So, not exactly the well regulated militia the 2nd Amendment envisions. https://t.co/4cpPJ286xp
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) April 26, 2021
Which is all to say: A majority of the justices have a record of supporting a more expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and when and how Americans can have guns. In this latest case, they'll consider when states can restrict people from carrying guns outside their homes
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) April 26, 2021
Going back to the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court granted today, Democrats now have a clear choice between two concrete options: Allow SCOTUS to knock down state and local restrictions on concealed public carry in the midst of endless mass shootings, or expand the court.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 26, 2021
This is just warming up. This has all the earmarks so far of a landmark decision. And while we’re dealing with the Second Amendment, on the one hand, don’t forget that the Dominion v. Lindell case is simmering on another burner, dealing with the First. It’s going to be a long, hot summer.
Thanks for the heads up. Will be keeping an eye on this issue. Shooting a few blocks from my house this morning! Cops haven’t found who was shot yet, and were waiting for a warrant to check where a blood trail led. We heard on the news and happened to drive by when one cop was still there. This is just an ordinary, medium sized city. Usually few shootings. More lately. Weird. My family had a couple of rifles and I learned to shoot, but do not own a gun now. How weird.
It all boils down to a simple phrase being ignored to turn something simple into something complicated, and worse, dangerous beyond belief or measure. The phrase? “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” The NRA and the gun fetishists have always ignored that part, or tried during my lifetimes at times and in some places to claim the mantle of some form of citizen militia. However, the fact is that every state, the District of Columbia and most (if not all) our territories have a well-regulated Militia – only it’s known by a more modern name. The National Guard. With the exception of DC Governors control the use of the National Guard in their states although the Guard is sometimes ceded to the National Command Authority – the DOD via the Commander in Chief/President. The point though is that having Militias in colonial days and then in the early part of our history as a nation was to ensure a supply of arms and (mostly) men who were practiced and knew each other well enough to fight as a unit if needed whether the problem was domestic or if merry old England, or later France decided to try and mount attacks to take over part or all of the new United States. When the Constitution was written and ratified there was a strong sentiment against having a standing army, but that underwent serious change after the War of 1812. We would come to have a standing Army, and Navy too.
Like any right enshrined in the Bill of Rights the second Amendment has been, even if it took time to fully incorporate them (incorporate as in apply at the state level as well as the federal) to lean favorably towards expansion, although as we know even that was uneven. Some people’s rights were more equally granted than others. Still, even the first amendment comes with restrictions. Not much but some. The craziest of the gun nuts want no restrictions at all. If they had their way anyone could own and go parading around with any weapon such as a .50 caliber machine gun – mounted on the bed of their pickup truck “just in case they needed it.” Or hand held rocket launchers like anti-tank missiles (I shudder at the thought of the old LAW rockets I once used being out there all over the place), Mortars, artillery etc.
That’s too much even for some of the most hard core gun nuts, and therein lies the issue and why this has gotten so complicated. SOME restrictions even they accept, if only because this or that person or group is afraid someone they have a beef with has more money and can buy more powerful/lethal hardware. Where to draw the line has always been the problem. People can reasonably disagree, but the push to make guns, especially those designed specifically NOT for hunting game or target shooting (and in competitions .22 is what is used except in long-range contests- ammo, even match grade is much cheaper not to mention recoil doesn’t factor in much to accuracy) but to kill other human beings.
As for who gets to own and use guns outside the home or off one’s own property the kind of self-regulation and discipline such as that instilled up through my father’s generation with young folks like me is long gone. But even then there were laws regarding minors and guns. Also, back then ANY misuse or carelessness would result in a dad (or mom) imposing a ban that might or might not be temporary and it was by god adhered to. Now? We have idiots pumping their kids full of wild bullshit talk and shoving military grade weapons into their hands and turning them loose. Not to mention the adult idiots themselves. And they keep pushing for more and more people go around “packing heat” at the very time we’ve seen a steady rise in gun violence including and especially mass shootings!
“Dodge City” was never really Dodge City but there were plenty of those old western towns where things were out of hand at times. These assholes today are demanding the entire country be “Dodge City” where anyone can shoot it out instead of duke it out anytime and anyplace including even in bars! (Guns and boozed up people are a really bad combination, even at some cookout in the country or in hunting cabins!)
The worse things are getting, the MORE these gun fetishists are insisting that there should be no gun regulations. We have been in the world of FUBAR for a while now, and instead of trying to figure a way out we have a bunch of conservative wack-jobs pushing to make it worse, or afraid to try for fear of losing their next election. And with each passing year more people suffer and even die from gun violence because of it.
The key point.
“So, not exactly the well regulated militia the 2nd Amendment envisions.”
More like the de-regulation and lack of laws seen in anarchy. America as Somalia coming your way courtesy of the Republicants
Well, as long as the Supreme Court recognizes that MY “right to keep and bear arms” also applies to my plans to build and store my own supply of nuclear bombs, I’m okay for the gun nuts to have their AK-47s and rocket launchers. My nukes will win out every single time.
I am, of course, exaggerating for the sake of argument but the word “arms,” in a strict sense, refers to ANY weapon, whether a pistol, a musket, a Molotov cocktail or a nuclear bomb. I would also love to have the NRA explain why–if they’re so in favor of open carry without restrictions–the organization NEVER criticized the police following the death of Philando Castile, instead blaming registered gun-owner Castile for his “marijuana possession.” And that was 2 days AFTER the shooting, claiming the NRA didn’t comment “during” an investigation whereas, a year earlier, after 5 Dallas police were ambushed and killed, the NRA issued a statement just hours after the shooting–albeit a statement that supported “the rights of Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others” while not mentioning the dead cops.