Until 2008, they could have done it. (Although the NY National Guard was arguably a pre-existing well-regulated militia).
SCOTUS already ruled it an individual right separate from militia duty.
By Bootb post there would be no 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights outside of federal cases. How well would that workout?
And no freedom of speech.
Every state constitution has something along the lines of a bill of rights.
I think the U.K., as a whole, and constituent countries, get along pretty well with parliamentary supremacy.
They noticed that a right to bear arms got mentioned in a Constitutional Amendment, and that a right to an abortion — wasn’t? Wow, that’s a real headscratcher.
Freedom of speech has much less to do with constitutions than Americans think.
After ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Sedition Act soon took effect.
Now classic novels by Henry Miller and D.H. Lawrence were illegal, and then legal, in the U.S. and U.K. at about the same time despite one country having a Bill of Rights and one having parliamentary supremacy.
But they don’t have to. Nothing mandates it,
It’s absurd to think that the people gave all these rights but only pertaining to actions of the federal government and not any other form of government.
Isn’t that exactly what the original constitution did, before the 14th amendment?
This ruling doesn’t eliminate the need to demonstrate eligibility so much as it shifts the burden to the state to prove you’re not eligible. As well as leveling the field across the state for all applicants. Before the ruling you could have one county with a sheriff handing out blanket approvals for all eligible persons next to a county with a sheriff that denied all applications without even reading them unless you were politically connected.
Not absurd when one considers why there is a Bill of Rights – Rhode Island and North Carolina were refusing to ratify the Consitution because it gave the federal government too much power.
State declarations of rights preceded the federal bill of rights. That’s where they got the idea that it was a nice thing to throw in to show you care about freedom – in this case, freedom from federal tyranny. Consider how the Bill of Rights ends:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Maybe I shouldn’t post like this because the power and goodness of the Consitution is just about all Americans can agree on nowadays. It wasn’t always quite like this, as shown by the fact that when the U.S. imposed a constitution on Japan, we wrote up something much closer to the British system.
This is theoretical, and the political connection thing undoubtedly violates anti-corruption laws, which is why the lawsuit isn’t about that.
AFAIK most applications are/were approved in every NY county. The main difference in New York City is/was delays of 3-6 months while the applicant waited for an appointment to explain why they want the kind of gun they want. I think this delay is/was a wonderful way to prevent impulsive shootings.
May issue states are/were safer. Not perfectly safe, but safer. If you don’t want to live there, you could eventually move. And I’d say the same about Oklahoma.
How many applications weren’t bothered to be submitted because the applicants knew “I want to protect myself from being victimized by criminals” wasn’t a good enough reason in the eyes of the local sheriff.
And on just what Americans think about the Supreme Court:
Bernhard Goetz.
They don’t have to. Federal law already defines who is in the militia.
The right of self-defense isn’t mentioned either. But the Supreme Court has invoked it.
The Supreme Court said that an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense exists in its Heller decision. And the Supreme Court said the right to have an abortion exists in its Roe decision. You either accept the authority of the Supreme Court to make these decisions or you don’t. And if you think precedents are meaningless and one Supreme Court can take away rights that a previous Supreme Court recognized, you’d do well to remember that that applies to Heller as well as Roe.
I personally do not accept that. I feel the Supreme Court should be bound by clear precedents, even when I don’t like those precedents. I think the Second Amendment is an outdated principal and I think the Heller decision was a bad idea. But they exist and on that basis, I feel the Supreme Court made the correct decision in this case. New York’s gun laws were unconstitutional because they infringed on people’s rights to bear arms as the Supreme Court has defined that right.
I don’t like this but I feel people should follow the law, even when they don’t like what the law is saying.
Being as only a few states are “may issue”, there is not enough data, and this is not a medical issue. And that just compared homicide rates per state, and ignore that fact that CCW holders tend to be quite law abiding, so of course if is likely NON-CCW holders who are doing the killing. Most homicides are gang killings, and a background check who rule out issuance. So the study more or less asked “How many apples?” when the real needed figure is oranges.
Here is a unbiased RAND study-
Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime | RAND
(older study) Using these data, Lott and Mustard (1997) concluded that states implementing shall-issue laws saw significant decreases in rates of violent crime, murder, rape, and assault. …(newer studies) Some studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, others find that the effects are negligible, and still others find that such laws increase violent crime. The committee concludes that it is not possible to reach any scientifically supported conclusion because of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there were many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the statistical imprecision of the results. The evidence to date does not adequately indicate Because studies with comparable methodological quality reached inconsistent results, we find that the best available studies provide inconclusive evidence for the effect of shall-issue laws on total homicides . either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. … Because studies with comparable methodological quality reached inconsistent results, we find that the best available studies provide inconclusive evidence for the effect of shall-issue laws on total homicides .
Newsom and the state legislature are writing some new laws on this. Since the ruling allowed for things like background checks (must do!) and gun safety classes, I am sure Newsom is going ro set so many high hoops it neuters the decision.
Yep
Guns are covered by an Amendment. Abortions are not.
Yes, but they all differ. NYS has no “2nd Ad” or 1st Ad as in the Federal BoR. So in theory you would not have the right of religion, of free press, free speech, etc.
Not according to RAND, and they compared many studies.
I am expecting hoops.
So, could the states that don’t like this new ruling do the kinds of things that anti-abortion states did with abortion clinics and voting rights? Say, get rid of all but one location in the state that can issue licenses, require two or three visits in order to apply, require invasive medical tests, such as a CT scan to make sure there are no brain abnormalities, and so on? Require doctors to tell applicants that having a gun in the house is more dangerous than not having one at all? These are all the kinds of burdens that were considered constitutional when abortion was still a constitutional right.
Can the states say that guns aren’t allowed in public transit, in any government buildings, in any state-run medical buildings or college campuses? Obviously, private stores and restaurants could also post no firearms signs.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “meaningless”, but (a) I’d note that they have, in the past, explicitly overruled precedents they’ve found fault with — which, to borrow your phrasing, you either accept the authority of the Supreme Court to do or you don’t; as it happens, I do — and (b) rest assured, I know I’d do well to remember that; I’d also do well to vote accordingly, and, as it happens, I do.