On the contrary, they read the room perfectly, it’s just not a room any of us are in.
2 Likes
And within 100 miles of a Supreme Court Justice’s residence.
1 Like
Well, they’ll be prohibited in legislatures for some people.
Sharks, let me introduce you to K9mm. The first line of firearms for dogs.
5 Likes
Fuck off bro
https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1539988629585543169?s=21&t=pWiMOLWpsYW8CNcM97u4Ng
And this
https://twitter.com/therealhoarse/status/1540006517704884224?s=21&t=pWiMOLWpsYW8CNcM97u4Ng
5 Likes
Relying on this nation’s “historic traditions” to determine what’s acceptable is pretty bad news for all groups other than wealthy white men.
And they’re not even right about the history!
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you’re allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren’t.”
Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s.
While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Winkler, in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state’s right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution’s allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”
6 Likes
You sure? Most people are saying getting a license and other requirements are still ok, just that the NYS rule specifically isn’t ok.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539982617575047168
A lot of Supreme Court rulings come down to sensible middle ground people saying “look we have to consider and balance both sides” and the Supreme Court saying “no we don’t and in fact it’s illegal if you do.” Look forward to the same kind of analysis when it comes to pollution vs climate change.
At least 3 of the judges are indistinguishable from Truth Social shitposters at this point.
I have to get to my cousin’s wife’s sister to come up with someone in my extended family that has a worse case of brain worms than Alito and Thomas.
My understanding is that May Issue regulations where the state has subjective discretion to issue permits were tossed. Shall Issue regs, which are a majority of states where you can get a permit if you jump through the hoops were left intact.
I think the NC ruling gets me most of all.
Voters in red states: We want no gerrymandering, felons voting, no voter suppression
Red state govt: LOL fuck you no
SCOTUS: …
Legislature in purple states: Voter suppression now!
Purple state governor: Yeah I’m gonna drag my feet a little on that.
SCOTUS: THIS CANNOT STAND!
1 Like
The gun decision doesn’t seem that bad in a vacuum, unless I’m missing something.
Seems like NYC theoretically could make it difficult to get a carry permit, it just can’t be on a subjective basis (being well-connected essentially?)
Who am I kidding they’ll just end up striking the next gun regulations down next time around.
https://twitter.com/RAVerBruggen/status/1539992823117844481
Yea it’s a pretty large logical fallacy. If a regulation didn’t exist then it’s unconstitutional means any regulation thought up or in response to any kind of future development is ipso facto unconstitutional. A bit of a CYA on originalism. “Look the understanding what the law means means understanding how the common man understood it at the time of its passage” is not the same thing as “legislators were omniscient beings who peered into the future and understood all future conditions so whatever regulations there were are obviously the only regulations ever needed henceforth”
1 Like
SCOTUS laying legal foundation for the real life Purge.
1 Like
Miranda is def getting overturned, btw.
SCOTUS has ended separation of church and state and all gun laws in a week and it will all be forgotten by next month and will have zero political impact.
And congressional softball games