Shot in the Dark

Shall Not Be Infringed

The Supremes have struck down New York’s “Show Cause to Carry” law:

The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities.

Clarence Thomas, God bless him, wrote the majority opinion (joined by the entire conservatie majority – Roberts, Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, Alito and Gorsuch:

“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,’” Thomas wrote in the opinion. 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. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

I’m no lawyer, but this part – from the text of the ruling – appears to be important:

Says Rob Doar from the MN Gun Owners Caucus:

https://twitter.com/robdoar/status/1539990799815000065

It’s a great day in America.

Updating this post as events warrant.

UPDATE:

The Progressive world as of 6/22: “Anyone who distrusted the Constitutional process in any way – say, on 1/6 – is a TRAITORRRRRRR!

The Progressive world on 6/23:

Why is it that “political commentators” whose sole background in life is yapping about grown men chasing balls around fields – Ed Schultz, Mike McFeely, Keith Olbermann – always so invincibly stupid?

UPDATE 2:

Democrats say things like this, thinking they’re making a great point:

Also in 1789, there was no internet, television, linotype, radio or morse code…

…but the smart people already know this. They’re not the people that the likes of Hochul are talking to.

UPDATE 3:

Inside baseball from Charles CW Cooke.

Posted

in

,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

30 responses to “Shall Not Be Infringed”

  1. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Makes sense — why would you need to have a license or “prove a need” for a constitutional right? The people in NYC who waited years for this ruling for the legal right to carry a gun aren’t the problem — but that’s just common sense.

  2. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    Looks like “red flag” laws are in trouble.
    But they have always been problematic. They are issued at the request of the police, for the most part, not some person who notices that their gun-owning brother in law is acting erratically. The only metric used to measure the success of “red flag” laws is the number of guns seized, and any effort to make it more difficult to issue the order, even common sense things like requiring an adversarial hearing before a judge, or punishing people who misuse the system for private revenge, will reduce the number of guns seized.

  3. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    All this means jack shit in a post-constitutional country where laws are applied differently if you are libturd or a citizen who can think for himself, and where 14th Amendment no longer exists.

  4. nerdbert Avatar
    nerdbert

    Read Alito’s evisceration of the minority “reasoning” in his concurring opinion. Full throated, cutting analysis rightly calling out his opponents as ignoring both the Constitution and any argument based on reality rather than emotionality. It is as wonderful a roasting as you can get away with in a place where you might be expected to work together.

  5. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Well we all now know the supreme courts decisions are never final. It just depends on who gets appointed.

  6. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    Kavanaugh notes that no permitting process in any shall issue state is challenged by the ruling. This leads me to believe that the US has just become a “shall issue” nation.

  7. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    I read Breyer’s dissent. It might be a good argument for repealing the 2nd amendment. What it does not do is explain why it might be legal to own a gun under the 2nd amendment, but illegal to bear it outside your home.

  8. kinlaw Avatar
    kinlaw

    Re: military weapons: when the continental army fought the Red Coats, guess what the they were armed with? Yup, muskets. So the 2nd WAS about a man keeping a personal “weapon of war” in his domicile. Weapons of war, guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

  9. kinlaw Avatar
    kinlaw

    Everyone, including the left, ought to be terrified by the poisoning of the DOJ into the stasi for the Dhimmicraps. The DOJ says they respectfully disagree with the ruling. So I guess that means they are insurrectionist now, and wil not abide by the high court ruling. Sounds kinda insurrectiony tome.

    Hey troll, all your friends are insurrectionists now, must be fun.

  10. kinlaw Avatar
    kinlaw

    So much fun watching the left meltdown. By god they LOVE the court when they agree with it, but if they don’t: enforce it yourself court. We need to abolish the court, and the constitution!

    AAAAHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  11. kinlaw Avatar
    kinlaw

    “”but the smart people already know this. They’re not the people that the likes of Hochul are talking to.””

    Preach it brother, she is talking to emetic and his ilk, suburban, frustrated wine moms, cat ladies like piggie navarro.

  12. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    Don’t cheer too much. Conservatives may have a controlling majority in the SC, but you know who controls the Presidency, the House and the Senate?
    The Left.
    How about the FBI and the CIA?
    The Left.
    How about the EPA, HHS, HUD, and especially DHS?
    The Left.
    How about the military?
    The Left.
    How about the public school system?
    The Left.
    How about academia and the entertainment industry?
    The Left.
    How about big tech?
    The Left.

  13. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    Maybe I am being too hopeful about the SC, but what I see in Alito’s concurrence, and to a lesser extent in Kavanaugh’s concurrence, is an attack on the idea that the government may consider collective goals less important than individual rights, especially the rights granted in the Bill of Rights.
    A state or city may have good reason (or not) to believe that keeping the number of legally owned and carried firearms to a bare minimum helps it in its goal of reducing gun crimes, but that goal, even if it is determined legislatively (“it’s better if fewer people are carrying guns”) does not Trump your individual right to carry a firearm. The controlling authority must give a reason why you, in particular, are not allowed to own or carry a firearm.
    Breyer makes it clear in his dissent that he is of the opposite opinion. The legislature may have the goal of reducing gun crimes, and after due deliberation may decide, without violating the constitution, that your right to carry a firearm as an average citizen does not exist. Alito uses the example of a New York woman who applied for a CC permit because her job required her to travel dangerous streets by foot after dark. She was denied a permit because the permitting official determined that she faced no special threat and was no more in danger than any other woman walking those streets at night. In Breyer’s world, this is a proper use of government power.
    The argument Breyer & some liberal pundits make, that every right has recognized limits (the “you can’t cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument) fails because the majority opinion makes it clear that the court is not rejecting existing limits on the right to carry in “shall issue” states. Instead the court is simply asserting that a state or locality may not arbitrarily prevent Americans from carrying a firearm. Breyer & company are arguing that because shouting fire in a crowded theater is not constitutionally protected speech, there is no constitutionally protected speech.

  14. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    This decision is consistent with Heller and MacDonald which is nice, but it stops short of requiring Strict Scrutiny in gun cases, which is a problem.

    In other cases involving fundamental rights, the law presumes any government regulation must fail unless the regulation is Necessary to achieve a Compelling State Interest, that it is Narrowly Tailored to achieve that end, add uses the Least Restrictive Means for it. That is a high bar, intentionally so, because the Founders went out of their way to make clear that the government has no powers except as specifically given to it, even going so far as to add a Bill of Rights making double-dog certain there was no confusion or doubt about which rights were hands-off.

    Liberals on the court hate that the Framers limited government power. Liberals on the court believe government power is a good thing and should be used more often. Liberals on the court keep trying to water down the standard of review to make it easier for government regulation to survive, coming up with “intermediate scrutiny” or “undue burden” standards.

    This decision specifically rejects the watered-down versions but does not specifically embrace the strictest standard. I speculate someone in the majority was a weak sister unwilling to make the hard decision (looking at you, Mister It’s Not A Tax But If It Were Then Obamacare Would Be Constitutional So Call It Good). Instead, Justice Thomas invented a new standard specifically for gun cases which requires a historical analysis to determine which regulations survive.

    I see this as an open door for Liberals to impose a blizzard of new regulations and schemes, knowing they’ll lose eventually but figuring they can wear down gun owners in the meantime. Remember when gun owners stripped of guns after Hurricane Katrina settled their court case to get their guns back? Three years later and that case settled, no appeals up the chain of federal courts.

    Good decision, but not the final act. Still a lot of work to be done.

  15. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    While I wait for my moderated comment to appear, the biggest selling point being touted about the Senate gun bill is that it closes the ‘boyfriend’ loophole.

    Presently, under federal law, a domestic abuse conviction disqualifies you to purchase a firearm if the abuser is living with, married to, or has children with the victim, but not if they’re dating while living separately. The domestic abusing non-resident boyfriend can still pass the federal background check to buy a guy. And boyfriends murdering girlfriends with allegedly guns is on the rise so we must halt this menace now. For the girls.

    A. Can a non-resident boyfriend be convicted of domestic abuse under federal law? I don’t think so, meaning conviction depends on state law. Does every state include boyfriends in the definition of domestic abuse? If not, loophole remains open. Why not have those states close their own loopholes?

    B. On the subject of state laws, Minnesota already says a person convicted of domestic abuse or who is subject to an OFP can’t get a Permit to Purchase; and the definition of domestic abuse include anybody who has a ‘significant romantic or sexual relationship.’ Sounds like boyfriends are already covered by state law. Why do we need a federal law? Will he be prosecuted twice? Or not at all?

    C. I wonder how many non-resident boyfriends get convicted of domestic abuse and then run out to buy a gun at a gun store, to shoot the girlfriend? I wonder if the claimed murder statistics are more like suicide statistics – acts committed by a person who already owns the gun or buys it on the street and therefore is not affected by background checks? Just how big is this loophole?

    I’d be willing a brand-new nickel we’re talking about federal legislation imposing a nation-wide solution to a tiny problem existing in a handful of states. For this, we gave up the Constitution?

  16. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    While I wait for my moderated comment to appear, some thoughts on the Senate gun bill’s funding for Red Flag laws based on my experience with Minnesota Orders for Protection in Family Court.

    Orders for Protection were still fairly new when I was a young divorce lawyer, but I quickly learned how they could be used to gain a tactical advantage in a divorce case.

    Wife files Petition for Order for Protection alleging she is in “immediate and present danger of domestic abuse: specifically, the fear of physical harm, bodily injury or assault.” No prior acts need be proven, the claim of fear of future harm is enough. The hearing is held ex parte meaning the Alleged Abuser (AA) does not know the hearing is happening. No judge is willing to take the risk Wife might be hurt or killed because the judge refused to issue the Order for Protection; instead, judges handed them out like Kleenex. The Order for Protection is issued and given to the Sheriff to serve on the AA, frequently while he’s at work.

    The Order for Protection commands the AA not to commit acts of domestic abuse. To ensure such acts don’t happen, the Order awards temporary possession of the house to Wife and forbids AA from coming onto the property for any reason, not even to get a pair of clean underwear for work tomorrow. If the parties have children, the Order awards temporary custody to Wife (the non-abusive parent) and orders AA to pay temporary child support. To keep the children safe from domestic abuse, the Order prohibits AA from having any contact with the children meaning no visitation. If Wife has a smart advocate/attorney, she cleans out the bank account “to prevent fraud or waste.”

    Interim result: AA is ambushed, can’t go home, can’t see his kids, and his employer must deduct money from his paycheck for support. AA has no money to hire a lawyer to fight the charges at the hearing. The Order for Protection is a temporary order so the statute requires a hearing on whether to make it a longer-lasting Order. AA is given notice of that second hearing which must occur within 14 days of the ex parte Order. The stated reason for the rushed hearing is to avoid harm from delay; the actual effect is to deprive AA of enough time to prepare a meaningful defense to Wife’s claims, often planned and prepared months in advance.

    When Wife files her Petition for Divorce, she notes the existence of the Order for Protection. If custody and visitation are contested, the court is required to consider domestic abuse in its custody determination and the visitation/custody/Guardian Ad Litem will report the children have been living with Wife for months while AA has had little or no contact indicating a lack of interest in the children’s welfare and suggesting his request for custody/visitation is merely a ruse to avoid paying child support.

    End result – an unsubstantiated claim of fear gets Wife everything in the divorce, which she never could have won in a fair case. I can feel myself getting angry as I type this, even though it’s been 30 years since I handled one of those cases. They still piss me off.

    Domestic abuse is a societal problem and Orders for Protection sounded like a sensible solution. Summary divorce based on a lie, was sometimes the result. Not always – depended on how honorable the Wife was – but when people get angry and emotional they say and do things nobody would expect.

    Now convince me Red Flag laws will work perfectly and will not be abused.

  17. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Also, Ammo Grrl’s column on Powerline today reminded me that Liberals are still tweeting stupidity like this one from New York Governor Kathy Hochul:

    “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.”

    First, not really. The first machine gun, the “Puckle Gun” was invented in 1718, half-a-century before the Constitution. It lacked rifling so yes, it was a smoothbore, but not the single-shot musket the Minutemen carried.

    Second, give me a musket and 75 uninterrupted minutes, let’s see how many shots I can get off. The problem in Uvalde wasn’t the weapon, it was the police.

    Third, if the Constitution only protected technology that was in effect at the time, then single-shot muskets are for me but Kathy will have to campaign on horseback, speaking without a microphone, to crowds of farmers and artesans living without air conditioning or electric lights, who will vote on paper ballots based on information they glean from local newspapers and pamphlets.

  18. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    This article is typical of the pro “red flag” crowd: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/californias-red-flag-law-utilized-58-threatened-mass-shootings
    “California’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Utilized for 58 Threatened Mass Shootings”
    It directly links the sheer number of guns seized under Cali’s “red flag” law, in effect since 2016, to a reduction in gun violence.
    So, what with all the gun grabbing, there must be a reduction in gun crimes, right? The “58 threatened mass shootings” have to make a significant defference in the number of mass shootings in Cali, or else why have it?
    Wrong.
    “While homicides have increased during the pandemic, mass shootings have remained stable since 2013, with some seasonal and annual fluctuations. California has experienced a mass shooting every seven to ten days each year. So far in 2022, the state has averaged one mass shooting every week.”
    https://www.ppic.org/blog/mass-shootings-in-california/

  19. Blade Nzimande Avatar
    Blade Nzimande

    While y’all were celebrating SCOTUS doing it’s job, your conservative GOP Senators just voted in favor of red flag Amber Heard laws.

    Now, degenerates can and will use mean tweets to send a SWAT team to your house to take your firearms from you at gunpoint.

    Whooooo hoooooo!!!
    ‘Merica
    #MAGA
    #winning

  20. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    JD, you write as if AA is screwed and there is no defense unless he has $MM in the bank to mount a counteroffensive the minute OP is served. Why won’t EVERYONE use this tactic?

  21. Mammuthus Primigenesis Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenesis

    This study of the effects of Cali’s “red flag” law (called a GVRO in California) makes for interesting reading.
    https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2022/06/01/injuryprev-2022-044544
    The research looks at the years 2016-2018. In that time, GVRO’s were issued against 413 individuals, but the researchers could only get complete or partial information on 389 of these. The researchers claim that ~40% of the GVRO’s listed “threat of self harm” as at least one of the reasons the GVRO was issued. The researchers make a great deal of the fact that none of the people served with a GVRO because of a threat of self harm went on to kill themselves, but this doesn’t really mean anything, since we don’t know if they would have good on their threat absent a GVRO.
    But we can look at statistics of overall suicide numbers in California before and after GVRO’s went into effect in 2016.
    40% of 389 is 155.6. Divide that by three for the three years of GVRO’s examined and you get ~52 fewer suicides by gun due to the GVRO system if every GVRO issued to prevent self harm prevented a suicide.
    In California the number of suicides per year in the 2010’s were pretty stable at ~4300/year. 52 represents 1.2% of that total, so the effect of GVRO’s on suicide prevention would be small. In any case, this chart shows no “GVRO effect”: https://calhospitalprepare.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/vp_data_brief_1_-_violent_deaths_final.pdf

  22. Paddyboy Avatar
    Paddyboy

    With the illegal appointment of Neil Gorsuch (Garland was due for a vote, not taking it was unconstitutional), and the inappropriate rush to add Coney-Barrett, the right-wing in this country ushered in the most activist SCOTUS in at least the past 100 years. Today’s ruling on Roe is a black day, and before any of you kick-up your heels about it, or sit and wring your hands about reasonable restrictions on firearms and look to SCOTUS to intercede, I think you’d better be clear that today’s ruling, especially given just how strenuously Roe was reaffirmed in 1993, means that NO right is safe in the U.S. When the worm turns, and it will, social mores are moving away from thinking guns solve all problems or really, hardly any problems, then a left-leaning SCOTUS will be free to strike down McDonald and Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen. You sought an authoritarian state, and now you have it. Kangaroo courts without concern for liberty, sound and consistent legal reasoning or precedent, just whatever their political faction wants. Congrats but when that same baton is used against you, through fully legal means, just remember that you reap what you sew. Now, different from you, the liberals will accept this as the new law, the new norm. They will respect the law (generally of course, not all), and follow it. They will not rise up in insurrection, though I strongly suspect you would/will when you lose ultimately on this right, as you will.

  23. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    More winning: RvW is now officially dead.

    And in other, unrelated news:

    Doctors and scientists are seeing an increase in the reactivation of the chickenpox virus, known as varicella-zoster virus (VZV), following the COVID-19 injections.

    move along sheople, get yer jab!

  24. Night Writer Avatar
    Night Writer

    And all the headlines I’ve read say something to the effect that the “Supreme Court expands gun rights”. No, they CONFIRMED gun rights; they didn’t add anything.

  25. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    Oh, look who crawled out from under his rock to regurgitate left wing lies. Sorry, Paddywhacker, but you are a moron! Read Alito’s opinion. As anyone with a brain larger than a #8 birdshot knows, this decision doesn’t ban abortions, especially here in the kill them all state of Minnesota. Further, even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that it was a flawed decision and would eventually be relegated to the trash heap of bad decisions.

  26. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    One of my favorite memes:

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=libertarians+plotting+world+leave&t=brave&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fpics.me.me%2Flibertarians-diligently-plotting-to-take-over-the-world-and-leave-4616504.png

    The P-meister would be appalled.

  27. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    The P-meister claims ” . . . given just how strenuously Roe was reaffirmed in 1993, means that NO right is safe in the U.S. When the worm turns, and it will, social mores are moving away from thinking guns solve all problems or really, hardly any problems, then a left-leaning SCOTUS will be free to strike down . . . .”

    Fair point, but not Conservatives’ fault. Abortion was not recognized as a right protected by the Constitution before 1973; homosexual marriage was not recognized as a right protected by the Constitution until 2015; these were Liberal aberations despite centuries of contrary precedent. Affirming the Constitution protects rights which are specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights is a return to sound Constitutional principles, not an abandonment of them. Returning to sound Constitutional principles is a good thing.

    No need to warn us that Liberals intend to overturn sound Constitutional principles to achieve through the courts what they cannot achieve through legislation. We know it, we’ve watched it, we’re used to it, we expect it. That’s why there’s so much celebration when the aberations finally get rolled back. It’s such a pleasant surprise to see government by the people, of the people and for the people, instead of government by edict, fiat and executive order.

  28. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    They will not rise up in insurrection

    AOC encourages violent insurrection outside Supreme Court….

  29. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    The DemoCommie’s foot soldiers, AntiFa and BLM are already calling for riots, even though Pedo Joe told them not to.

  30. Blade Nzimande Avatar
    Blade Nzimande

    I’d trade this decision for a reassignment of faggotry as a mental illness in the DSM.

    Let the degenerates kill off their spawn; idgaf. Rather protect the kids that make it to the world from the skulking sexual predators that prey on them.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.