Utopia Talk / Politics / SCOTUS strikes down "may issue" (guns)

earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 23 11:06:14 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf TLDR: a state may no longer require that to get a concealed carry permit, the applicant must demonstrate a need for self defense by "demonstrating a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." One of the two examples was someone (that otherwise passed an extensive background check, et cetera) who lived in a high crime area, they were denied a concealed carry permit because everyone in that "general community" lived in a high crime area, so that guy's need was not "distinguishable" from everyone else's safety needs. There are still many reasons a person's concealed carry permit can be denied, but they must be objective and (my word) algorithmic, not subject to the opinion of a licensing officer or similar. Relevant quote: " The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self defense is no different. "
Dukhat Member	Thu Jun 23 11:08:24 Deeply political ruling. The court waited until a 6th justice to take on all of these conservative dream issues. Stripping individual rights away in big chunks.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 23 11:19:04 No individual rights were stripped away here. Six states with rogue laws will need to grant and affirm civil rights in line with those enjoyed by >40 states. This is a civil rights win. Alito filed a concurring brief that was basically a dissent of a dissent. This part is worthy of note, basically "why are you rambling on about shit unrelated to the law before us?" http://imgur.com/a/rGYSEJ9
Dukhat Member	Thu Jun 23 11:33:28 Was thinking about Miranda ruling. The gun ruling isn't balanced enough. States and especially cities need some room enforce their own laws.
Rugian Member	Thu Jun 23 11:36:04 Good. Speaking as someone who lives in a may-issue state, it's an absolute nightmare - basically, if you want a license you need to either 1) pray that your local police chief isn't personally anti-2A or 2) have decent insider connections. In many municipalities, its an effective way of restricting (legal) gun ownership without explicitly banning it. Also Dukhat is a retarded moron. Lol
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Jun 23 11:54:40 " The gun ruling isn't balanced enough. States and especially cities need some room enforce their own laws. " It's plenty balanced. Extensive background checks and permit fees and waiting periods, which the overwhelming majority of actual criminals will simply ignore anyways, can still be required. Much of California is like Rugian's experience. Senator Feinstein can get a concealed carry permit, and if you're drinking buddies with the sheriff you can get one too, but if your abusive rapist is stalking you and sending you threatening messages, you cannot get one, depending on the whims of the sheriff and the political winds of the day. The auto response to that is "well that sheriff is in error then" is correct, but the solution isn't to play whack-a-mole and wait for the courts (one of the folks in this supreme court case has been waiting in Litigation Hell since 2014), you need streamlined, objective, non-whimsical criteria that allows normal law abiding people to exercise their civil rights. The requirements to vote, drive a car, or carry a firearm, need to all be in the same ballpark. We can vigorously debate where in the ballpark each one should be, but one of them can't be so far out of that ballpark that it's on the surface of the moon (as is presently the case in 6 states).
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jun 23 13:48:24 This is a very reasonable ruling. You can still have plenty of concealed carry restrictions, just not de-facto bans.
murder Member	Thu Jun 23 15:15:31 Republicans won't be happy until every city in America is Tombstone. New York should just ignore the ruling.
murder Member	Thu Jun 23 15:18:37 "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right ..." It's not. In fact it's not a constitutional right at all.
kargen Member	Thu Jun 23 18:00:25 Part of New York governors response. "I’m sorry this dark day has come, that we’re supposed to go back to what was in place since 1788 when the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified. And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at the time were muskets. I’m prepared to go back to muskets." This might be the best response to her comments. "If Kathy Hochul's security detail doesn't set an example by switching to only using muskets first... then she can f--- right off," from Tim Young. Was also this one. The Blaze reporter Jill Savage dinged Hochul’s tweet, commenting, "Sorry the Constitution happened to you."
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: