Supreme Court says Constitution protects right to carry a gun outside the home

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

Yeah, trying to view any SCOTUS “arc towards greater justice” as definitive and immutable is an iffy exercise. Part of the problem is that in our lifetimes the political branches have generally punted to SCOTUS deciding things they don’t dare losing votes about. Which increases the politicizing of the Court (no matter what the politicians may decry).

As to the comments on relative crime numbers, shall issue vs. may issue, that can get tricky. NYC itself for instance seems right now already in the upslope of a rise cycle after two decades of being a safer city, so it could be hard to point out to how much this contributes. “Shall issue” states are likely to be ones where gun presence was already well established and you’d have to track relative rates of rise/fall. We’ll be seeing all kinds of numbers supporting all kinds of positions.

42

At the risk of sounding like an apologist (I’m not), it’s really

43

There is nothing in this ruling that prevents requiring a background check, mandatory training or etc. Brett Kavanaugh actually made that quite clear–and in a sense that is a small win for gun control advocates, as he laid out a list of things that are perfectly fine to do–many of which would be far more onerous requirements than currently exist in like 30+ states. What this ruling essentially has said is you cannot precondition getting a carry permit on justifying a specific need, but that actually leaves a pretty big window of opportunity for quite rigorous gun control.

44

I’m in favor of this ruling but I am against blind compliance with the Supreme Court. I believe the States and the other two branches should actually feel free to simply ignore Supreme Court rulings that are out of bounds with constitutional norms or that exceed appropriate judicial authority. I think this should be normalize as much as possible. It would be far cleaner to neuter the judiciary’s unconstitutional policymaking role it has usurped over the last 200+ years via legislation or constitutional amendment, but barring that I’m fine using other means. The Supreme Court is not a good institution, and rarely has ever been. It should not be respected, and its decisions should be seen more as advisory than binding in many situations.

45

I strongly disagree.

46

That’s fine, but I don’t believe the court as constituted is a valuable institution. It is also not a necessary one. Most democracies do not have a supreme court of lifetime appointees who serve as essentially a “super-legislature.” Most have some form of judicial review, usually only for select areas of law, and on most matters a simple legislative act can overrule a court ruling on a law. This is generally a better approach. Our system did not explicitly establish judicial review, it was essentially seized by an activist court, and then it was allowed to fester for 200 years, so a totally unwritten power now has almost unlimited scope. Some of it could be trimmed up with legislation, but a lot of it can’t be, a lot of the Supreme Court’s power is based on acceptance of its legitimacy, when that acceptance should not be given.

47

I don’t disagree. But more and more states are going toward “Constitutional Carry,” which means a (non-prohibited) person can carry a CCW without a license of any kind. I’m in Ohio, and this became law just a few days ago. This is a trend, and I doubt any state will go “backwards” anytime soon.

48

(BTW meantime the bipartisan gun legislation that passed the Senate 65-33 including McConnell’s support, just got ZERO Republican votes in the House.)

49

Though as a Canadian I have no personal stake, this Supreme Court seems relatively unconcerned with public opinion or the consequences of its actions. I am pleased the judicial process in Canada, far from perfect, minimizes political involvement. The argument that a modern society should try to interpret law in light of what intelligent people intended, hundreds of years ago, is one that remains puzzling and pretty partisan, prioritizing politics, predates popular and persistent progress, perpetuates passé philosophies and persistent plutocracies.

50

Thanks for that. Yeah, I think it’s going to be difficult to parse-out exactly all the causes of gun crimes - any link with the whole “may issue” and “shall issue” laws are likely to be very tenuous, AFAICT.

Yeah I think that will be the trend, further dividing the country. Newsom is already planning to sign a bill that enables people to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products, similar to how people in Texas can sue abortion providers.

51

The Court tests its legitimacy…

Sorry. Germane to my ideas above, but not wanting to alter the focus of this thread.

52

Or, as Mary Ziegler puts it in The Atlantic, in this short excerpt from an article “If the Supreme Court Can Reverse Roe, It Can Reverse Anything”

(All Stories by Mary Ziegler - The Atlantic)

JUNE 24, 2022, 10:45 AM ET

For months and [even years] have seen this coming and yet the reality of the Supreme Court’s decision is still a shock. How can it be that people had a constitutional right for nearly half a century, and now no more? How can it not matter that Americans consistently signaled that they did not want this to happen, and even so this has happened?

The Court’s answer is that Roe is different. Roe, the Court suggests, was uniquely, egregiously wrong from the beginning—a badly reasoned decision criticized by even the most ardent supporters of abortion rights, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The majority suggests that the best comparison to Roe (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the decision that saved abortion rights in 1992) is Plessy v. Ferguson, the 19th-century decision that held racial segregation to be constitutional.

If this decision signals anything bigger than its direct consequences, it is this: No one should get used to their rights. Predicting with certainty which ones, if any, will go, or when, is impossible. But Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a stark reminder that this can happen. Rights can vanish. The majority wants us to think otherwise. They tell us that a right to abortion is unlike other privacy rights, such as the right to marry whom you wish or to use whatever contraception you choose. Abortion, in their view, is distinct from these, because it puts someone else’s life on the line. And so if we believe the Court’s conservative justices, this is a reckoning about abortion and nothing more.

Even if this is the case, the Court’s decision is staggering. Emphasizing that no other rights will be lost—convincingly or not—suggests that there is no problem if this right disappears with the stroke of a pen. The majority opinion spends precious little time on the damage that reversing Roe will do…

53

Do you think that states can or should just ignore this, and other rulings, even going so far as to straight up ban guns?

That’d be an interesting precedent.

54

I’m not Martin, but in the face of an activist, illegitimate court, I think that states and citizens should say Thanks for your advice, but we won’t be doing that. The court is only the final authority because we’ve agreed that it is. That agreement needs to be reevaluated.

55

Agreed, we get what we elect. Now that actual issues are once again issues maybe people should become concerned and participate in the process. Elect people that will actually run on the issues and not fear mongering. Organize locally and lead a change instead of depending on court decisions to protect your interest. The tail has been waging the dog long enough, people need to become active if they actually care about these issues.

56

How is that defined? Is that just any court that makes decisions I disagree with?

By constitutional amendment, or by simply ignoring the court? Just pick 9 people to sit in black robes and pick their noses all day?

57

It’s defined by any court that pursues the interests of its members at the expense of the interests of the people of the nation.

Just say no.

58

Yes. The states can still require carry permits, and those permits can still have heavy regulatory requirements. Just that the states can’t deny a permit because the authorities don’t think you “need” to carry a gun.

59

(Zero on the procedural to consider, that is — on the actual passage they wrangled 13 R votes, bipartisan schmipartisan, was the House GOP’s position)

60

Ironically enough, that’s exactly what gun owners have been doing.