11 ms·

> Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive

> Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see. > States rights has always been a double edged sword. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The same state rights that allow gun control and homosexuality to be locally legalized before national concensus; also now lead to abortion legislation being a state issue. You're a day too late to hold this position, the supreme court struck down New York's attempt to regulate open carry yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-carry-gun-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-...

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Your understanding of what happened yesterday is extremely poor. The Supreme Court did not strike down New York‘s ability to regulate open carry at all. They struck down the states ability to withhold concealed carry permits to anyone who does not provide a sufficient reason for application. Turns out you don’t actually need to provide a reason for civil rights. The NYPD since being sued over this has been found guilty in corruption cases of withholding permits to people who weren’t donors, connected, celebrities, elite. No one reasonable should think you need to prove to the NYPD why you need your rights. “May Issue” is now dead. “Shall Issue” is still fine, and open carry laws have not changed at all. It should be noted, that New York had at least three opportunities in court to not appeal decisions they lost, and prevent it from going to the Supreme Court. Back when this case started the state of New York had assumed that Hillary would win and going all the way up to supreme court would be fine. When they lost the second circuit, they had offered the NYRPA concessions, they were reject, and had to appeal the decision making it go to supreme court. This was ALL the state of New York’s arrogance. And now NJ, MD, HI and others are surely pissed. As to “needs” and “rights”. Hawaii since 2016 has issued approximately four concealed carry permits to citizens. They must be renewed every year. and you cannot leave your home county with the gun. This has been an obvious violation of rights and is soon to change.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Thank you for spelling out the facts. I don't think a lot of people realized what was really going on with all this May Issue nonsense. It was pure corruption, and completely antithetical to the Constitution. I personally believe that Constitutional/permitless carry is the only way it should be, but getting rid of May Issue is a great step in the right direction.
- Jotra7 4y ago
- lovich 4y ago
  How does this not invalidate the states rights argument? Like I agree with the NY ruling but it’s explicitly limiting the power of the state.
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    Since the supreme court recognizes a right of personal gun ownership in the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment applies the rules of the constitution to the state governments as well, the states cannot violate a person's right to personal gun ownership. The supreme court does not recognize a right to an abortion in the constitution so the issue is kicked back to the states per the 10th amendment. States rights only apply when things are not recognized as constitutional rights.
    - lovich 4y ago
      9th amendment is in there too, but no the States have to have this one particular right because its not enumerated. They are using inconsistent logic

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Your understanding of what happened yesterday is extremely poor. The Supreme Court did not strike down New York‘s ability to regulate open carry at all. They struck down the states ability to withhold concealed carry permits to anyone who does not provide a sufficient reason for application. Turns out you don’t actually need to provide a reason for civil rights. The NYPD since being sued over this has been found guilty in corruption cases of withholding permits to people who weren’t donors, connected, celebrities, elite. No one reasonable should think you need to prove to the NYPD why you need your rights. “May Issue” is now dead. “Shall Issue” is still fine, and open carry laws have not changed at all. It should be noted, that New York had at least three opportunities in court to not appeal decisions they lost, and prevent it from going to the Supreme Court. Back when this case started the state of New York had assumed that Hillary would win and going all the way up to supreme court would be fine. When they lost the second circuit, they had offered the NYRPA concessions, they were reject, and had to appeal the decision making it go to supreme court. This was ALL the state of New York’s arrogance. And now NJ, MD, HI and others are surely pissed. As to “needs” and “rights”. Hawaii since 2016 has issued approximately four concealed carry permits to citizens. They must be renewed every year. and you cannot leave your home county with the gun. This has been an obvious violation of rights and is soon to change.

jaywalk 4y ago
Thank you for spelling out the facts. I don't think a lot of people realized what was really going on with all this May Issue nonsense. It was pure corruption, and completely antithetical to the Constitution. I personally believe that Constitutional/permitless carry is the only way it should be, but getting rid of May Issue is a great step in the right direction.
Jotra7 4y ago
lovich 4y ago
How does this not invalidate the states rights argument? Like I agree with the NY ruling but it’s explicitly limiting the power of the state.
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  Since the supreme court recognizes a right of personal gun ownership in the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment applies the rules of the constitution to the state governments as well, the states cannot violate a person's right to personal gun ownership. The supreme court does not recognize a right to an abortion in the constitution so the issue is kicked back to the states per the 10th amendment. States rights only apply when things are not recognized as constitutional rights.
  - lovich 4y ago
    9th amendment is in there too, but no the States have to have this one particular right because its not enumerated. They are using inconsistent logic