Announcement

**Norm Deguerre x2** · 06-23-2022, 11:10 AM

Just read that Freakin Awesum for once !!!!

**WARFAB** · 06-23-2022, 11:12 AM

I think I'm getting too cynical. If Norm is saying "freakin awesum" maybe there's something to it.

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Ummm... does this mean strict scrutiny on 2A cases from now on? Or does it go beyond strict scrutiny.....?

**camper4lyfe** · 06-23-2022, 11:14 AM

I don't understand 90% of what I'm reading (and I'm only 25 pages into the 135 page decision), but what I'm gathering so far 1) the need for cause to get a permit has been ruled unconstitutional. This wipes out the "shall issue" of several states and cities. 2) it MIGHT wipe out the administrative regulations ei hunting and fishing only. I'm going to be going on a long dive into YouTube's 2A channels to get a better understanding of how far this reaches, but it's looking good so far.

**camper4lyfe** · 06-23-2022, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by WARFAB View Post

Ummm... does this mean strict scrutiny on 2A cases from now on? Or does it go beyond strict scrutiny.....?

I definitely see a LOT more lawsuits coming down the pipe based on this.

**Norm Deguerre x2** · 06-23-2022, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by camper4lyfe View Post

NY has been shot down.

I see what you did there.

**WARFAB** · 06-23-2022, 12:37 PM

Thomas is freaking awesome.

A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America.

**camper4lyfe** · 06-23-2022, 01:14 PM

On top of the shall-issue requirement, it appears that strict scrutiny (or single-step approach to ruling) will now be required, and I think that's the biggest result of this case.

**usmcveteran** · 06-23-2022, 02:52 PM

I haven't gotten through it all yet either. Here's a potential fault in the courts logic.

From what I've read so far it sounds like they are saying that the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms including in public. They keep talking about the need to review history and tradition when determining if a law violates the second amendment.

They also say that it only protects arms in common place at the time.

That doesn't make sense because if you make them illegal they are no longer common.

However what they could be trying to say is that if a arm has ever been used in common place you can't ban it.

For example, 30 round mags, AR-15's, hell even fully automatic weapons should be legal since if we look at history that have been legal for the general public at one time.

Tanks, bazookas, and all those other things the left likes to bring up have never to my knowledge been legal for the public to own so they aren't protected under the 2nd amendment.

ETA: tax stamps for full auto guns should also be thrown out as well. Since they should be legal and it's illegal for the government to tax exercising a right like voting they can't tax you to buy full auto firearms, doing so would limit that right to only those who can afford it.

**WARFAB** · 06-23-2022, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by camper4lyfe View Post

On top of the shall-issue requirement, it appears that strict scrutiny (or single-step approach to ruling) will now be required, and I think that's the biggest result of this case.

My reading of it is that Thomas's opinion goes beyond strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is a "means-end test", and Thomas is saying there should be no such "means-end test" for the 2A. Curious to hear Norm Deguerre x2 's take on it. I had always assumed strict scrutiny is what we want, but it might be better than that...? I'm not confident enough in my legaleze, but the way I read it Thomas is saying strict scrutiny is a form of interest balancing or "means-end testing".

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

**Norm Deguerre x2** · 06-23-2022, 03:19 PM

Norm is happy with this.

**WARFAB** · 06-23-2022, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by usmcveteran View Post

For example, 30 round mags, AR-15's, hell even fully automatic weapons should be legal since if we look at history that have been legal for the general public at one time.

A: I like where your head's at.

B: The Miller ruling was a mess at the time, and there is even less justification for the NFA now given its deference to arms in common use by the military. The NFA should be struck down based merely on my understanding of the Miller ruling. This Bruen ruling only supports the idea.

**usmcveteran** · 06-23-2022, 04:39 PM

Let's take this a step further...... Open carry should be legal.

Also how can you restrict possession of firearms in public places in the interest of public safety when those are the places mass shootings happen and you have constitutional right to self defense.

Today is a great day

**WARFAB** · 06-23-2022, 04:46 PM

Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.

Am I stretching this statement out of context to mean more than it does, or does it mean really good things?

**usmcveteran** · 06-23-2022, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by WARFAB View Post

Am I stretching this statement out of context to mean more than it does, or does it mean really good things?

This is what limits the quote you used. I feel dangerous and unusual was a way to say you can't have nukes, tanks, ICBMs etc as a normal citizen. However dangerous doesn't mean dangerous in the sense that a rifle with 30 rounds is dangerous or a knife is dangerous or a car or pen is dangerous. I feel it means something they couldn't define that everyone regardless of politics can agree is dangerous. As the "experts" like to point out with COVID, it's not zero risk. There is always risk and danger in everything we do.

"After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely ex-
plained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the car-
rying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of Eng-
land 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we
were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis
today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and
moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627"

Announcement

NYSRPA vs Bruen

NYSRPA vs Bruen

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment