Pretty big news yesterday but I was a bit too busy to post then.

"The Second Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” "

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/s ... n-law.html

I know others here will disagree, but I think this decision was the right one. The ability to carry a firearm for self-defense should not be limited to the wealthy or connected, IMO.

This is a great ruling for the poor and minority communities who could never afford to protect themselves due to the good old boys club of CCW permitting process in NY.

LabQuest wrote:

This is a great ruling for the poor and minority communities who could never afford to protect themselves due to the good old boys club of CCW permitting process in NY.

My thoughts exactly. Prior to this ruling, people in those communities who wanted to protect themselves only had two options-

1. Buy a gun and carry it illegally
2. Do nothing and be defenseless

Now, at least they'll have an actual choice.

An odd choice. With virtually the same arguments, we get one case where the federal constitution overrules the states, and another where the states may do as they please. We are now in the weird situation where

the right of poor people to firearms is considered essential, while

the right of poor people to access abortions and other basic healthcare is merely optional.

mxaxai wrote:

An odd choice. With virtually the same arguments, we get one case where the federal constitution overrules the states, and another where the states may do as they please. We are now in the weird situation where

the right of poor people to firearms is considered essential, while

the right of poor people to access abortions and other basic healthcare is merely optional.

Except the Constitution explicitly mentions firearms and says nothing about abortions. Nothing weird about it.

bpatus297 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

An odd choice. With virtually the same arguments, we get one case where the federal constitution overrules the states, and another where the states may do as they please. We are now in the weird situation where

the right of poor people to firearms is considered essential, while

the right of poor people to access abortions and other basic healthcare is merely optional.

Except the Constitution explicitly mentions firearms and says nothing about abortions. Nothing weird about it.

Doesn't the constitution say nothing about handguns, types of firearms, concealed carry permits, or anything of that sort? All it says is we have the right to bear arms. It is up to each era to interpret whether that allows for private nuclear weapon ownership or not. Frankly, there isn't even an age limit imposed by the constitution. It just says, 'people'. The youngest soldiers in the Revolutionary War were hardly teenagers; does this mean we should allow kids who can't get learner's permits to buy a gun? Where is the line, and why is it where it is?

EDIT: This is an intentionally disingenuous argument, but I mean to show that it's all up to interpretation of the law as written, and this is why 'strict textualism or originalism' fails.

TriJets wrote:

Pretty big news yesterday but I was a bit too busy to post then.

"The Second Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” "

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/s ... n-law.html

I know others here will disagree, but I think this decision was the right one. The ability to carry a firearm for self-defense should not be limited to the wealthy or connected, IMO.

Which passage in the 2nd allows an individual to carry a weapon for self defense?

Kiwirob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Pretty big news yesterday but I was a bit too busy to post then.

"The Second Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” "

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/s ... n-law.html

I know others here will disagree, but I think this decision was the right one. The ability to carry a firearm for self-defense should not be limited to the wealthy or connected, IMO.

Which passage in the 2nd allows an individual to carry a weapon for self defense?

I recommend reading the majority opinion that was handed down from the SCOTUS yesterday. It does a pretty good job at explaining that.

Due to the number of posts that have had to be deleted as a result of being off topic the thread is now locked