SCOTUS 6-3 second amendment decision announced.
- Thread starter John Galt
- Start date
- Status
I imagine you consider yourself lucky that the 14th Amendment (Incorporation Doctrine) exists.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
This is much, much bigger than just "shall issue." The court struck down scrutiny - at any level - as a means test for the legality of 2A restrictions. Meaning: interpret it as "shall not be infringed," and stop pretending it does not say what it plainly says. There may be restrictions, but those restrictions have to be proven to work, and be consistent with history and intent.
Bans on pseudo assault weapons, magazine capacities - a whole host of restrictions - are now moot, or will be as they are challenged. This is big - you basically now have a constitutional right that in many places had been removed. The court has laid out a way to interpret 2A challenges, and it invalidates most ant-2A rulings from the past.
Awaiting this ruling, a number of 2A challenges had been put on hold to see what the court said. One for example is Duncan v. Bonta in CA regarding magazine capacity bans. The interpretation of the 2A in NYSRPA shreds the judgment in that CA magazine case and nullifies it. This is just one example.
Bans on pseudo assault weapons, magazine capacities - a whole host of restrictions - are now moot, or will be as they are challenged. This is big - you basically now have a constitutional right that in many places had been removed. The court has laid out a way to interpret 2A challenges, and it invalidates most ant-2A rulings from the past.
Awaiting this ruling, a number of 2A challenges had been put on hold to see what the court said. One for example is Duncan v. Bonta in CA regarding magazine capacity bans. The interpretation of the 2A in NYSRPA shreds the judgment in that CA magazine case and nullifies it. This is just one example.
Last edited:
Huge win for freedom.
I agree. It's the last bullseye in a trifecta for civil rights:
1. DC v Heller, which established the 2A as an individual civil right
2. McDonald v Chicago, which incorporated the 2A along with the rest of the bill of rights, making it binding on states
3. This decision, which says the phrases "shall not be infringed" and "keep and bear" mean what they say
1. DC v Heller, which established the 2A as an individual civil right
2. McDonald v Chicago, which incorporated the 2A along with the rest of the bill of rights, making it binding on states
3. This decision, which says the phrases "shall not be infringed" and "keep and bear" mean what they say
EXACTLY.
Need to stop the word smithing to achieve some odd dream world, that in reality is WORSE.
States like NYand NJ will attempt to put various obstacles like exceedingly high application fees, onerous training requirements, etc.. but those too will get brought before courts and ultimately SCOTUS.
Huge win.
Huge win.
Gents, I appreciate everyone keeping this discussion in a legal context, but I can’t see this going anywhere but into the political. So, let’s lock it here before that happens. Thank for understanding.
- Status
Similar threads
