Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Guns; this article makes some good points
Title: The Supreme Court’s new gun ruling means virtually no gun regulation is safe
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-court-new-york-rifle-pistol-clarence-thomas-second-amendment-guns
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is a devastating decision for anyone who cares about reducing gun violence.
[ IMO not really. ]
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/23/23180205/supreme-court-new-york-rifle-pistol-clarence-thomas-second-amendment-guns
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is a devastating decision for anyone who cares about reducing gun violence.
The case involves a 109-year-old New York state law which requires anyone who wishes to carry a handgun in public, whether openly or concealed, to demonstrate "proper cause" before they can obtain a license to do so. An applicant must show "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession."
Similar laws exist in five other states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — plus the District of Columbia. Together, these jurisdictions make up about a quarter of the US population, and a much higher percentage of the country’s urban population. In effect, that has meant very few residents of those states have been able to legally carry a handgun in public.
Similar laws exist in five other states — California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — plus the District of Columbia. Together, these jurisdictions make up about a quarter of the US population, and a much higher percentage of the country’s urban population. In effect, that has meant very few residents of those states have been able to legally carry a handgun in public.
This decision actually tells states that you can't restrict a carry permit only to those who can convince the government that they have a "special need".
One part of this article that I have a problem with is:
"In reality, however, Thomas’s new test takes extraordinary liberties with the text of the Second Amendment, which explicitly states that the purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect service in a militia."
Where did that come from? The right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting individual right. The 2A, in conjunction with the 14A, operates to protect that right from government infringement. Having the militia clause in the amendment along with other text in the Constitution gives the federal government nexus to describe arms appropriate for militia service.