No, I don’t think it is wise to ban guns so I don’t support that. But the Supreme Court was never intended to be a super legislature, and it’s questionable if it was intended to have an “ultimate veto” for deciding what is constitutional and what isn’t. This power, never granted in the text of the constitution, has been abused heavily since the 1870s, and has mostly been misused for most of its history. There was a weird period from about the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s where it was abused in a way that made liberals happy, and during that time the court became kind of enshrined as a liberal institutional “good.” Meanwhile the Republicans dutifully worked to take it over and reverse it. The problem is a too powerful court will always be used that way by one side or another.
We shouldn’t just ignore all court orders or not have courts at all, but most countries don’t empower a “supreme court” to this degree, and also allow their decisions to frequently be overturned by legislation. The court needs its balls clipped, and has needed them clipped for a long ass time.
Frankly a lot could be done by passing legislation reorganizing the Federal courts–we largely organize them based on reforms that (then Chief Justice) Taft advocated for while he was on the bench, and unsurprisingly those reforms gave the court a lot more power in structural ways. Much of that can simply be changed with a little creative legislation, and ceasing to believe things set in place by statute in the early 20th century are written in stone.
I don’t know of any democratically elected politicians who said so either.
What do you mean by “practically everybody else”? Are you talking popularity of their decisions? Delegitimizing the court over not following popularity is almost as bad a metric as doing so because you don’t agree with its rulings.
I’m not sure how you are answering my question there. Are you claiming that being detained and tortured is simply a matter of person comfort? That having political leaders detained and tortured isn’t bad for the people of the nation?
This thread is about gun rights and the recent Supreme Court decision. Let’s not expand this into the Supreme Court in general, Roe v Wade, etc. Keep the topic focused, please.
Feel free to discuss those other issues, just do so in their appropriate threads.
Since the Supreme Court only has authority because the people have agreed to let it have that authority, then when only 25% of the people have confidence in the court, it is illegitimate.
My answer was that your hypothetical is ridiculous. Arresting and torturing politicians is not part and parcel of defying the court except in the most slippery-slope of arguments.
A lot of misinformation in the media and even here. This does not direct concealed carry laws, does not direct states on many aspects of implementing them. This should uncontroversially be a good thing. It does not say they have to give you a license, it says that they can deny for background check reasons, both due to federal law and presumably state policy (for example, some states restrict carry licenses for people with DUIs, and vary in how strongly they apply this policy).
It takes capriciousness out of the hands of one or a few law enforcement officers. Such policies have been used in centuries past to deny purchase or carry of firearms to ethnic minorities, poor people, and so on, many times. The law says we can’t discriminate? Great, instead there are “issues with your paperwork” but we know what that means. NYC even had you pay a non-refundable fee to get one! Parallels to voter ID etc are clear. Santa Clara County, California’s outgoing sheriff corruptly solicited bribes for licenses from Apple execs.
Interestingly, while Texas Republicans were doing their abortion snitching hijinks awhile back, Kavanaugh in his questioning asked them whether this would apply to Second and First Amendment rights, I don’t think they got the implication.
I saw one post about someone going through their county’s website and the next available appointment says 2029. I’m presuming it’s a computer algorithm!
Considering that 42 states have either Shall Issue permit laws or no permit laws at all and somehow the sky has not fallen, I predict a whole lot of nothing will happen once permit laws are reformed in California, New York et al. The criminals there already carry all the illegal guns they want. About the only uptick in “gun violence” I anticipate is an increase in justified self-defense shootings.
Yeah, and I don’t like that. At the minimum, a simple background check needs to be done.
The bill, called The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed the lower chamber by a vote of 234-193, with 14 Republicans joining all the Democrats.
Yeah. The “may issue” is often corrupt-
We are all at least kinda reasonable here, so if you were the authority in a may issue state, which would you allow?
I like carrying a gun, in case of a Antifa uprising.
I am a diamond merchant, and there have been some fellow merchants killed recently, their diamonds stolen.
I have left my abusive husband, and I fear for my life.
I have donated large sums to your election campaigns.
I am a Hollywood big-shot and the paparazzi have been harassing me.
Yeah, they would simply ban blacks and gays from voting or holding office.
You’d ignore all recent SCOTUS rulings simply because a handful of “may issue” states will not be “shall issue” states???
Exactly.
Yes, good points. I was on a penal with some FBI agents, etc some time ago, and this came during break- why do states with open carry laws have NEITHER a significant increase OR decrease in violent crime? The consensus was that criminal activities decrease, but crimes of passion increase.
The new bipartisan bill does “work on that”. It should cut down on “strawman dealers” the leading source of guns to criminals.
Again, you can read the thread if you want to know my reasoning for declaring the court illegitimate. I believe that a mod has asked us to drop that discussion, though.
Specifically, New York can’t effectively designate the entire island of Manhattan as a sensitive space. The rest of that section:
But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department
Emphasis on the “historical basis” analysis for those seeking parallels between the Bruen and Dobbs decisions.
Basically they’re going to do what Washington D.C. did for years after Heller: drag their feet as long as they can, and pass law after law in conflict with the ruling that will all have to be appealed and overturned.
Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said she plans to pass a non-binding resolution that would call on Albany to ban guns from all government buildings, schools, hospitals, places of worship, parks, daycares and cemeteries and other facilities — and establish a 1,000 foot buffer around those places where guns would also be banned.
Right, this has been done with child molesters, and it was found that excluded just about the entire city. Which is their plan, of course.
Next is $2500 gun safety classes, held every other leap day.
