In a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
I would be a bit more sympathetic about the hand-wringing if I wasn't away that the Sullivan Law in NY was enacted to deny gun rights to the political opponents of Tammany Hall as well as those people.
Then there is this bit of pernicious hand-wringing:
It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States.
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 23, 2022
The first step is for a state the "court" has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.
Great. You're a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?#IgnoreTheCourt
One might recall that the segregationists took the same stance as Olbermann now does when the Supremes handed down Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.. They said the same thing as Olbermann, that the Supreme Court doesn't have the capacity to enforce its own rulings.
I get that a lot of people don't like this ruling. But to say "let's just disobey the ruling" means that people are making common cause with some of the worst people in American history.
I guess that Mr. Olberman doesn't want people of color to have guns. Noted.
ReplyDeleteThat has been the underlying focus of most gun-control legislation and proposals. It goes back a very long time.
ReplyDeleteIt's less that the Supreme Court is doing away with the specific New York law requiring permit to carry, it's that the ruling opens up the likelihood that ALL state regulations on gun ownership - and increasing the likelihood of gun violence - will be coming next.
ReplyDeleteA majority of Americans want gun regulations to ensure public safety, but how are we going to be safe when open-carry is everywhere, and when every study on gun ownership keeps telling us that "more guns = more gun violence"?
IMHO, another step toward the repeal of the 2nd. Demographically, the 2nd is threatened now, and will be very vulnerable within 20 years. The law of unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see how you get to 38 states for a repeal.
ReplyDeleteRepeal of 2A is unlikely, those that claim its possible
ReplyDeletefor got what it takes and a modification would be easier
to sell. Considering you have so 23 states that permit
open carry... your missing a lot of potential no votes.
As to NY, EB knows what it takes to get a permit there and
its just trimming some BS from the law not the whole
damn bath with the baby. Excepting NYC as they have
listened to a different drummer since dirt was new.
Eck!
The 2nd amendment will not be repealed. Whether the majority desires it or not, effective mass murder prevention will not happen. Sure, most people want reasonable gun control laws and most people are appaled by these gun toting incel terrorists stalking the streets looking to kill liberals. And the constant slaughters.
ReplyDeleteBut what the majority wants is of no importance to our permanent minority government. The majority wanted Al Gore and Hillary Clinton but the massively unrepresentitive electoral college, Senate and Supreme Court will always always protect the interests of our moneyed rulers- corporations are people too, you know. So it will be continued racist minority rule, autocracy or outright fascism into the foreseeable future short of another civil war. The traditionally conservative Supreme Court is now just to the right of John Burch and Attila the hun so no progressive or equality seeking or democratic movement is possible. Why do the Dems always think the SC is going to save democracy? Courts are always reactionary unless their feet are held over the fire by renegade 1%ers like Roosevelt with court packing threats.
The court's absurd 2nd amendment interpretation is insane. NO MILITIA EXISTS. The ruling minority belive little children shot dead every week is well worth it if they get to shoot M16s and AK 47s for a hobby, and lucrative gun sales continue. Don't want your child's head blown off by a Trumpite? Move to Canada or Australia or England, communist.
Just let me be sure I've got this straight: according to the Gestapo Court states do not have the right to regulate firearms ... but states do have the right to regulate what you and your half of the population do with your own body?
ReplyDeleteOoooooo K ...
The court's decision will be enforced through civil suits eventually through federal courts. A person injured after being denied a permit has standing to sue for damages and punitive relief. After a few awards of millions,the states will start designating "sensitive" areas. And around and around we go again.
ReplyDeleteMy grandfather told me that I should not carry a gun into a bank, a bar or before the bar. I think that about defines "sensitive" areas.
Maybe I heard what I want to hear, but it sounds like it just got a whole bunch easier to get a carry permit. Ca seems to be a bit hard on that, I am unable to legally carry my Model 66 on a walk on the property out back. I wasn't going to bother with a permit because I don't carry downtown, but if they make this easy, I'd love to be legal.
ReplyDeleteGo supremes
w3ski
Repeal will take a long time, but the chipping away will begin shortly, as the pendulum has swung about as far as it can. The demographic trends in the U.S. show that over time, support for gun rights will slowly be whittled down. Now, there are certainly possibilities for changing that, but the trends so far seem pretty solid. The first restrictions will be small and targeted, impacting limited groups, much as any creeping change does. The refusal to take any meaningful changes (21 or 25 age limit for instance) in the latest bill simply doesn’t release any of the building pressure on the system.
ReplyDeleteI’m not anti-2A, but I think standing in the door yelling “guns today, guns tomorrow, guns forever” is counter-productive.
Well, we’ve just seen how rights can be taken away as easily as they are given.
ReplyDeleteRight taken away... First the constitution as applies to the first
ReplyDelete10 amendments do not grant rights. It is clear about those are
rights may not be infringed.
The rest is just noise and a distinct lack of minding ones
own business.
Eck!
Somehow I doubt that Joe Biden is sending the 101st Airborne to New York City to free someone jailed in New York City for violating New York City's gun laws.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education very carefully laid out their reasoning and made sure they had support from the President before issuing their ruling. They didn't just say "we're the Supreme Court, we rule, you drool" like the current Supreme Court. One of the first rules you learn in OCS is don't issue an order that you know is going to be disobeyed and that you can't enforce, because it destroys your legitimacy. But then, this Supreme Court really doesn't care about legitimacy, because it's five jihadis who just want to burn the place down, and destroying the Court at the same time they burn everything down is par for the course.