06-23-2022, 10:28 PM
WAHOOOO!
That there is a variety of rebel yell, not a reference to the large hairy bipedal bigfoot-like thing.
The SCOTUS released a decision today that unequivocally states that US citizens have a right to carry firearms for self defense. Not just own, but CARRY. It was a case against New York, which requires one to prove a pressing need to carry for a specific threat before the carry license may be issued. SCOTUS says the 2nd does not allow for a "second test" after a purchase permit is issued in order to actually carry the gun you just bought.
"Progressive" heads are exploding across the nation.
Now that doesn't mean that you don't have to have a CCW to carry concealed (if your state, like mine, requires that sort of thing), but it DOES mean that if you apply for the CCW, New York (and presumably everywhere else) cannot deny it simply because you couldn't prove a "need" commensurate with THEIR criteria. If you are safe enough to own a gun (first test), then no second test (proof of need) is required to carry it.
I live in Virginia, and it is a "shall issue" state - in other words, if the State cannot prove a compelling reason you CAN'T carry concealed, they have to issue the permit. And most counties dropped the cost of the fees as a response to the legislature trying to disarm us. The local governments were responsive where the state government was detached from The People here. My county dropped the fees from the former 50 dollars down to 15 dollars, for example.
Now, I think this decision may just be the tip of the iceberg relating to SCOTUS 2A decisions. This session they tabled two other cases, one regarding "assault weapons" bans, and another regarding "high capacity ammunition feeding device" bans, for later hearing. I believe they may have wanted to set this precedent first to lay the groundwork for those hearings later.
One can hope.
And that may cause other Liberal heads to explode, but it is what it is. If Liberals can leave me alone to carry my gun, I can leave them alone to not carry one if that is what they choose. It's just a matter of coming to an equitable agreement. Live and let live, don't micromanage other folks' lives when you have one of your own to be running.
Horizontal Harris said that it was against the Constitution to make such a decision - I reckon that's why her job is playing second fiddle to a mentally defective boss, and the SCOTUS's jobs are to, you know, actually determine Constitutionality. they are qualified, she isn't, so I take what she says in light of that fact.
Now we have to circle the wagons around the SCOTUS and protect them - not allow them to be assassinated off, or diluted by court-packing with other unqualified people.
Game on. Home team one, visitors zero.
.
That there is a variety of rebel yell, not a reference to the large hairy bipedal bigfoot-like thing.
The SCOTUS released a decision today that unequivocally states that US citizens have a right to carry firearms for self defense. Not just own, but CARRY. It was a case against New York, which requires one to prove a pressing need to carry for a specific threat before the carry license may be issued. SCOTUS says the 2nd does not allow for a "second test" after a purchase permit is issued in order to actually carry the gun you just bought.
"Progressive" heads are exploding across the nation.
Now that doesn't mean that you don't have to have a CCW to carry concealed (if your state, like mine, requires that sort of thing), but it DOES mean that if you apply for the CCW, New York (and presumably everywhere else) cannot deny it simply because you couldn't prove a "need" commensurate with THEIR criteria. If you are safe enough to own a gun (first test), then no second test (proof of need) is required to carry it.
I live in Virginia, and it is a "shall issue" state - in other words, if the State cannot prove a compelling reason you CAN'T carry concealed, they have to issue the permit. And most counties dropped the cost of the fees as a response to the legislature trying to disarm us. The local governments were responsive where the state government was detached from The People here. My county dropped the fees from the former 50 dollars down to 15 dollars, for example.
Now, I think this decision may just be the tip of the iceberg relating to SCOTUS 2A decisions. This session they tabled two other cases, one regarding "assault weapons" bans, and another regarding "high capacity ammunition feeding device" bans, for later hearing. I believe they may have wanted to set this precedent first to lay the groundwork for those hearings later.
One can hope.
And that may cause other Liberal heads to explode, but it is what it is. If Liberals can leave me alone to carry my gun, I can leave them alone to not carry one if that is what they choose. It's just a matter of coming to an equitable agreement. Live and let live, don't micromanage other folks' lives when you have one of your own to be running.
Horizontal Harris said that it was against the Constitution to make such a decision - I reckon that's why her job is playing second fiddle to a mentally defective boss, and the SCOTUS's jobs are to, you know, actually determine Constitutionality. they are qualified, she isn't, so I take what she says in light of that fact.
Now we have to circle the wagons around the SCOTUS and protect them - not allow them to be assassinated off, or diluted by court-packing with other unqualified people.
Game on. Home team one, visitors zero.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’