ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court Opens up Concealed Carry

cernjSHU

All World
Gold Member
Jul 18, 2001
11,837
7,720
113
Well, the Supreme Court has opened up the country to the Wild West. Everyone will be carrying guns. in this country. How law enforcement will react to this is beyond me. It looks like with the makeup of this Court, that there will be absolutely very little restrictions on firearms. Besides convicted felons, looks like almost everyone can carry outside the home.

Forget any gun control legislation now.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MBDuncan
Full text of Thomas' opinion.


I took note of this:

For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’”

I believe they were applying this statement to pistols. However, when the AR ban gets discussed, I don't see a semi automatic carbine (AKA AR-15) rising to the "unusual" level.
 
The NY law was clearly an infringement on the 2A.

New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” This “special need” standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area “‘noted for criminal activity’” does not suffice. Rather, New York courts generally require evidence “of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBDuncan
The issue is 2A rights.

Regarding safety, you might ask Koch and Nash what they think. I suspect they will feel safer.

If you are suggesting that society is less safe because more concealed permits will be issued in New York, I would disagree with that.
 
Last edited:
I'm thankful we have true democractic republic, so when the overwhelming majority of its citizens and its representative states disagree, 9 unelected high priests decree the whims of 18th century slavers when bullets weren't even a thing yet 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: silkcitypirate
I'm thankful we have true democractic republic, so when the overwhelming majority of its citizens and its representative states disagree, 9 unelected high priests decree the whims of 18th century slavers when bullets weren't even a thing yet 🤣
The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution based on popularity of an issue? Who knew?
 
I'm thankful we have true democractic republic, so when the overwhelming majority of its citizens and its representative states disagree, 9 unelected high priests decree the whims of 18th century slavers when bullets weren't even a thing yet 🤣

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. Congress does not have the balls, brains, or ability to change it, nor enact laws within its confines that would add some sanity to modern day gun ownership.
 
Exactly.

But it’s the correct decision based on our Constitution.
I disagree. But that’s irrelevant. The new restrictions will based on areas. Restrict it so much that you really can’t carry it legally in. too many places. No bars, restaurants, government buildings, parks, stadiums, places, Busses, trains etc. perhaps have within 1000ft of such areas like drug free zones. You will have gun free zones.

This will lead to ridiculous amounts of litigation. I think SCOTUS has gone too far. I guess we shall see if people will use guns more to resolve issues on the streets.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. But that’s irrelevant. The new restrictions will based on areas. Restrict it so much that you really can’t carry it legally in. too many places. No bars, restaurants, government buildings, parks, stadiums, places, Busses, trains etc. perhaps have within 1000ft of such areas like drug free zones. You will have fun free zones.

This will lead to ridiculous amounts of litigation. I think SCOTUS has gone too far. I guess we shall see if people will use guns more to resolve issues on the streets.
I don't think it will have much of a material effect other than giving law abiding gun owners another measure to protect themselves (or others).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBDuncan
i live in a city and feel like everyone would be walking around sweating, paranoid, finger on the trigger. inducing chaos that wasnt going to happen otherwise
 
its cool everyone will live in fear of being shot by people who now all get to experience power trips.

i guess well see how it works out
 
  • Like
Reactions: cernjSHU
I'm thankful we have true democractic republic, so when the overwhelming majority of its citizens and its representative states disagree, 9 unelected high priests decree the whims of 18th century slavers when bullets weren't even a thing yet 🤣

The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, not vote according to what's popular and what isn't. The job of Congress is to best represent the people and draft legislation accordingly. The Constitution calls for three branches of government that check and balance each other - the legislative, executive and judicial.

The nine justices of the court are not high priests. While they are technically unelected, they are appointed and confirmed by people who are elected. I suggest you take a basic civics course to learn more about our system of government in this country to ensure your views are better informed.
 
The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, not vote according to what's popular and what isn't. The job of Congress is to best represent the people and draft legislation accordingly. The Constitution calls for three branches of government that check and balance each other - the legislative, executive and judicial.

The nine justices of the court are not high priests. While they are technically unelected, they are appointed and confirmed by people who are elected. I suggest you take a basic civics course to learn more about our system of government in this country and greater inform your views.
i think the argument is that the constitution is outdated and no longer 100% relevant to enforce in some areas. our forefathers would agree. in this case technology was not really accounted for. so to some there is a grey area on this topic.
 
i think the argument is that the constitution is outdated and no longer 100% relevant to enforce in some areas. our forefathers would agree. in this case technology was not really accounted for. so to some there is a grey area on this topic.

The Constitution is a living, evolving document. Hence the role of the Supreme Court to interpret it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution based on popularity of an issue? Who knew?
Convenient, haha. Been the law of the land by the same group for decades but now that there are 6 heavily conservative members, it is overturned.

Seems to be maybe there is human bias in interpretation of constitution and that if 6 progressive leaning judges it would be interpreted differently hmmm 🧐.
 
Convenient, haha. Been the law of the land by the same group for decades but now that there are 6 heavily conservative members, it is overturned.

Seems to be maybe there is human bias in interpretation of constitution and that if 6 progressive leaning judges it would be interpreted differently hmmm 🧐.
No doubt the court has gotten politicized. Same thing happened in reverse when Liberal judges had a majority.

Your point has nothing to do with the ruling though. The court should not follow popular opinion. I’m sure you realize that, right? You’re starting to worry me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
Just think of road rage situations.

TK
Sure that can happen. But let's be honest if people wanted to do that 5 months ago they could've done that anyway. Just my opinion, a person who followed laws and kept their gun locked up is not all of sudden going to go on a shooting spree because of a concealed carry law. I don't see many people wanting to take someone's life any chance they get. Those who are willing to do that were a threat to society well before that.
 
No doubt the court has gotten politicized. Same thing happened in reverse when Liberal judges had a majority.

Your point has nothing to do with the ruling though. The court should not follow popular opinion. I’m sure you realize that, right? You’re starting to worry me.

Which is a shame because the Court is not supposed to be a political arm of government. Had to laugh and shake my head when I read Pelosi's statement today describing the Court as "Republican-controlled."
 
The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, not vote according to what's popular and what isn't. The job of Congress is to best represent the people and draft legislation accordingly. The Constitution calls for three branches of government that check and balance each other - the legislative, executive and judicial.

The nine justices of the court are not high priests. While they are technically unelected, they are appointed and confirmed by people who are elected. I suggest you take a basic civics course to learn more about our system of government in this country to ensure your views are better informed.
Putting aside that the Supreme Court members being a life long position is by itself ridiculous with the power they have over the average American.

Put aside that the “living document” of the constitution was great at the time it was made. The living part of it is not easily changed with our system, for good or bad so many times judges have to guess the intentions of the makers since most items are not explicitly said.

What is important here is that there are easy ways to interpret the constitution as it has been for 50 years differently that todays decision. Judges are human with ingrained biases and if there were less or same amount of conservative to progressive judges it would not been over turned.
 
The Constitution is a living, evolving document. Hence the role of the Supreme Court to interpret it.
I agree that it is a living evolving document. However, the makeup of this SCOTUS of at least 5 Justices interpret it as original constructionist. The conservative justices look at the document as strictly interpreting the document without looking how society and technology has evolved and progressed. They look at the document and interpret it like when it was originally written. Such is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, but elections have consequences.
I agree. Hall85 isn’t getting it though.

It’s not as simple as just the ruling on explicit law. Smart legal people at par with these judges can read the existing constitution very differently than todays verdict. Somehow he doesn’t get that. So if the president wins by popularish (state popular) vote, and he appoints a leaning judge to interpret a document that was framed to do best by the American people, what Americans want absolutely should matter by vote or using what the Americans want in its interpretation.

Last word today, my prediction in next 20 years on this current state our country is in, this ruling, the open carry, Clarence thomas statements, going after medical professionals helping women with tough decisions, going hard against LGBT, trans, mothers, BLM, voting rights etc..the pengeliam is going to swing so far left bc the right has gone too far right, that everything progressive you fear will happen and be worse.

then it’s going to swing again and too far right and even those on here that are super conservative may even feel a little uncomfortable. Sad state of affairs we are in.
 
I agree. Hall85 isn’t getting it though.

It’s not as simple as just the ruling on explicit law. Smart legal people at par with these judges can read the existing constitution very differently than todays verdict. Somehow he doesn’t get that. So if the president wins by popularish (state popular) vote, and he appoints a leaning judge to interpret a document that was framed to do best by the American people, what Americans want absolutely should matter by vote or using what the Americans want in its interpretation.

Last word today, my prediction in next 20 years on this current state our country is in, this ruling, the open carry, Clarence thomas statements, going after medical professionals helping women with tough decisions, going hard against LGBT, trans, mothers, BLM, voting rights etc..the pengeliam is going to swing so far left bc the right has gone too far right, that everything progressive you fear will happen and be worse.

then it’s going to swing again and too far right and even those on here that are super conservative may even feel a little uncomfortable. Sad state of affairs we are in.
Left has to solve inflation first. All those things you mention impact American homes less than inflation. If the left can solve inflation, you may be correct. If the left can't solve the current mess of inflation, supply chain issues, baby formula shortages, I don't see the pengeliam swinging. You think more people are going to use their vote for trans rights or the cost of gas? My guess is family economic issues and safety will be more important to most voters, not LGBTQIA+, trans, mothers, BLM, or voting rights. The left wants you to believe these things you mention are top priorities to most, but they're not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
I agree that it is a living evolving document. However, the makeup of this SCOTUS of at least 5 Justices interpret it as original constructionist. The conservative justices look at the document as strictly interpreting the document without looking how society and technology has evolved and progressed. They look at the document and interpret it like when it was originally written. Such is the problem.

I don't think that's a problem at all. I think that's a perfectly valid opinion, as is looking at how things have evolved.
 
I don't think that's a problem at all. I think that's a perfectly valid opinion, as is looking at how things have evolved.
lol you either think it is a living document or you are a strict constructionist. The opinion itself relies on the rational that the only constitutional privacy protections that exist must have been "deeply rooted" in the country at the time of the Constitution. I have gone over this opinion and criticized at great length. InterestingJustice Roberts would have upheld Roe although finding this law not violate the Constitution. In a frightening concurrence, Thomas believes that the right to marry (gay marriage) and contraception rights should be reconsidered.
 
Same thing happened in reverse when Liberal judges had a majority.
Do you know when was the last time there was a liberal majority on the Supreme Court? It has been about 50 years. It hasn't been since the Warren Court even though Warren was a Republican.
 
Bad assumption to think that people who have concealed carry permits are on a power trip.

The many people I know who have them are simply people who are doing so to have the convenience of not having to worry about having the ammo stored in the trunk while they transport their weapon to the firing range

Those that are actually going to carry in public do so so they can do so discreetly as opposed to open carry where they strap the weapon outside any garments.

I would wager a bet that all those posting against concealed carry are people who know little about guns, have never owned a gun or fired a gun yet have very strong opinions about gun ownership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
lol you either think it is a living document or you are a strict constructionist. The opinion itself relies on the rational that the only constitutional privacy protections that exist must have been "deeply rooted" in the country at the time of the Constitution. I have gone over this opinion and criticized at great length. InterestingJustice Roberts would have upheld Roe although finding this law not violate the Constitution. In a frightening concurrence, Thomas believes that the right to marry (gay marriage) and contraception rights should be reconsidered.

Why is that frightening?
 
I agree. Hall85 isn’t getting it though.

It’s not as simple as just the ruling on explicit law. Smart legal people at par with these judges can read the existing constitution very differently than todays verdict. Somehow he doesn’t get that. So if the president wins by popularish (state popular) vote, and he appoints a leaning judge to interpret a document that was framed to do best by the American people, what Americans want absolutely should matter by vote or using what the Americans want in its interpretation.

Last word today, my prediction in next 20 years on this current state our country is in, this ruling, the open carry, Clarence thomas statements, going after medical professionals helping women with tough decisions, going hard against LGBT, trans, mothers, BLM, voting rights etc..the pengeliam is going to swing so far left bc the right has gone too far right, that everything progressive you fear will happen and be worse.

then it’s going to swing again and too far right and even those on here that are super conservative may even feel a little uncomfortable. Sad state of affairs we are in.
Lol…elections do have consequences but that still has nothing to do with what the role of SCOTUS is.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT