Supreme Court justices lean toward expanding right to carry a concealed gun in public
The Supreme Court’s justices, citing the “right to bear arms” in the 2nd Amendment, sounded ready Wednesday to strike down laws in New York and California that deny most gun owners permits to carry concealed guns in public.
Most of the justices said people who live in “high-crime areas” and fear for their safety should be allowed to carry a gun for self defense. And they said this applies equally to people who live in cities as well as in rural areas.
During their comments and questions, the court’s six conservative justices said they were skeptical of state and local officials who deny gun permits to law-abiding residents.
But a ruling in the New York case could be limited, however. The justices, both conservative and liberal, said they would not prevent cities or states from enforcing bans on guns in “sensitive places,” including subways, football stadiums and elsewhere.
At issue on Wednesday were laws in New York, California and six other states that limit who may obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
Typically gun owners are required to show they have a “special need” or “good cause” to be armed, not simply a general fear for their safety. In New York City and Los Angeles, these permits are rarely granted.
What I want is blanket shall issue.
That is the first step to full national reciprocity.
I would love for the Court to ram mandatory shall issue, including New York City, right up the Democrats’ asses.
I just know the Supreme Court has a tendency to be a bunch of pussies who don’t like to upset the norms.
But damn do I hope Court Conservatives grow a couple of pairs of balls between them and tell NYC to start issuing permits.
There are only two scenarios here: The Supreme Court makes the decision so narrow it is basically worthless and meaningless or they side with the state.
I have no faith in the courts. None. The courts hate guns and gun ownership and the Supreme Court is no exception. Five of those justice is right now desire the literal complete and total ban of all guns and the mandated extermination of literally every single solitary United States citizen that owns guns along with the complete and total extermination of every single person in every single home with a gun that does not fully support the government literally killing their Family members and neighbors for owning guns. The other four just believe that there should be no gun ownership at all. Only thing is that at least five of those justices can at least set aside their personal feelings on the matter.
Even if the court rules that everyone gets shall issue, the definition of sensitive places will be so numerous and broad that carry will be effectively banned. Imagine:
All subways, within the premises of a bank, or within 250 feet of an ATM, inside of any location where alcohol is served, all government owned buildings, public transportation, sporting events, within 500 feet of any school, college, or day care center, any pharmacy where narcotics are dispensed, or any location where the property owner posts a “no guns sign.”
Now tell me where you can carry.
Not only is all that true, it’s worse than that:
How many permits have been issued in D.C. 13 years after Heller? Or in Chicongo 11 years after McDonald?
SCOTUS could declare we all have the right to own crew-served weapons and artillery tomorrow, and it wouldn’t make any difference anywhere.
Until judges at the federal district court level start throwing politicians in jail for contempt, and U.S. Marshals start arresting them for deliberate civil rights violations, nothing will change.
Typically gun owners are required to show they have a “special need” or “good cause” to be armed, not simply a general fear for their safety.
Typical MSN. They word this to make it sound like “may issue” is the norm, when in reality most states are “shall issue” (read: no “special need” or “good cause” necessary — meet the legal requirements and they must issue a license/permit) or “constitutional carry”. And the latter is growing.
By my rough count (checking Wikipedia, omitting D.C., provinces, and territories), 21 states are “constitutional carry” (20 of which “shall issue” permits for reciprocity purposes), another 21 states are straight “shall issue”, and a whopping eight are “may issue” — and of those eight, two are “may issue” by statute but “shall issue” in practice.
I may be miscounting, but it looks like MSN is saying six of the 50 states are “typical”, and the other 44 are not.
Sure. *smh*
The “typically” in the quoted article refers to the may-issue states; it says clearly there are only 8 of those and “shall issue” is the law in the other 42. I don’t read it, as you seem to, as a deliberate distortion.
I am hopeful that the SCOTUS is able to avoid partisan politics and decides to use this case to shore up the last two gun cases that the left has basically ignored, in order to insure that gun owners are once and for all protected. What is the point of getting cases before the SCOTUS, if the lower courts and states are just going to ignore them anyway?
Especially at a time when things are so unstable in America, if the courts do not start to attempt to lend some solid foundation for our Constitution, I suspect that the so called insurrection of January 6th will be laughed at, in the future, as a quaint joke, as the survivors huddle closer to the fires trying to get warm, in the ashes of what used to be a country.
I would rather huddle in the ashes around a fire, than to live as a slave on my knees. That’s if, the fascists win and don’t kill us all.
SCOTUS can magically find non-existent rights to murder an unborn baby or allow gay marriage, but have a hard time with a right guaranteed and stated in The Constitution by 27 simple words that end with the warning, “shall not be infringed.”
That’s just a particular example of the general observation that only a small handful of politicians, in any of the three branches, have any understanding of and respect for the Constitution, a.k.a., the Supreme Law of the Land.
It’s very hard indeed to find a judge who has any constitutional principles.
Never have I more keenly felt the need to be armed than in these so called sensitive areas. People carrying a huge blutooth speaker on a bus blaring music and sneering at the other passengers daring them to say anything. The many examples of violence happening un subways as covered by this blog are perfect points.
Hospital parking lots of emergency clinics in the wee hours because accidents never happen at 10AM on a tuesday.
Micro 9 in pants pocket.
Simply as a thought experiment.
“What I want is blanket shall issue.”
What I want is blanket constitutional carry. What I’ll settle for is blanket shall issue.