Locked and Loaded: The Supreme Court Argument Appears To Confirm A Major Gun Rights Victory in the Making

We have been discussing (here and here and here) the Supreme Court challenge in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, the first Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over ten years. Yesterday’s oral argument appeared to confirm the expectations in those columns on the likely reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a reinforcement of Second Amendment rights.

In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.

This case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” New York wants to exercise discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional presumption in favor of such a right.

The oral argument quickly confirmed the likely votes of five justices against the New York law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh appeared clearly committed to a reversal as well as a possible expansion of protections for gun rights. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared committed to vote against the law but not necessarily on board with a significant expansion of protections from the earlier holdings of the Court.

The surprise of the argument came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong Second Amendment opinion as an appellate judge.  Barrett appeared open to arguments that greater regulation of guns may be appropriate in cities or “sensitive places.”

As I wrote earlier, justices like Roberts could vote down the law but retain the view in Heller that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” That includes restrictions in “sensitive places.”

However, in one telling moment, Roberts noted that gun rights should be more expansive in cities to allow self-defense. After all, he asked New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, “How many muggings take place in the forest?”

One of the interesting issues to watch is whether the majority supports a historical methodology in its analysis, another issue flagged in the earlier columns. Gun control advocates have pushed for a consensus approach based on the rulings of lower courts. The majority seemed to reject that view in favor of a historical approach on how such laws were written historically in England and the colonies.

Kavanaugh, as expected, offered the clearest and strongest position from the right side of the Court. He rejected the consensus approach, a rejection that seemed shared by five other justices.  Those six justices will likely be looking to historical, not consensus, rationales.

The division on the right of the Court may come on how to address limitations or bans for “sensitive places.” Barrett suggested that large gatherings may qualify as such places and warrant restrictions. Roberts suggested that there may be legitimate prohibitions for places like university campuses or “any place where alcohol is served.”

While oral arguments can offer unreliable evidence of actual voting, the questions of the justices support the earlier prediction of a likely big win for gun rights. Any disagreement over rules for “sensitive places” would occur on the other side of a reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

 

 

108 thoughts on “Locked and Loaded: The Supreme Court Argument Appears To Confirm A Major Gun Rights Victory in the Making”

  1. The general discussion about concealed carry should include a distinction between states that do not require a permit to carry concealed (constitutional carry) and states that require a permit. The big difference being that to get a permit, one has to have undergone some (varying) check of criminal history and some (varying) required training. With those cautions in place, the arguments are very strong that the permit should be freely issued to anyone who applies, and that limits on WHERE they can carry should be very minimal.

    This SCOTUS case is about permit access matters, and not about no-permit-required situations, so my comments don’t apply to this case specifically.

    I bring up constitutional carry because the arguments that civilian gun carriers should be given high trust as to where they may carry are strong if the carrier has had the training and background check but weaker if he has not. If not, he may be highly trustable or he may be the sort of bad guy you would never want to be near when he is armed. I do not have a proposed way to way to craft any PLACE restrictions for no-permit states, just raising the issue. I only comment that even though I strongly support people’s ability to carry concealed, and think that constitutional carry sounds great, in some no-permit locations I worry some about whether I am among dirtbags legally carrying guns. (I know that in a permit state they are there carrying illegally.)

    1. The good news is that in the general population, particularly in the population of so-called “sensitive places,” the percentage of dirtbags of one sort or another is pretty small compared to the number of good citizens.

      If that’s not true, you might need to hang out elsewhere!

      1. Well, your first point is probably true, but your second point is flippant and unhelpful. But it does connect to my sentiment that in public I would like to feel that I was among a lot of armed good guys, but few armed bad guys. I guess a permit requirement can serve as a dirtbag filter, a good thing.

        But relevant to the SCOTUS case, I think it could be summarized as being about the distinction in permit-issuing states between a shall-issue state and a may-issue state. (May-issue is the bad kind – New York, California, etc.) In may-issue states, the issuing authority, usually a sheriff or chief of police, has unrestricted power to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a citizen qualified by background and training who applies for a permit. There, it’s all ideology and political mood that controls access to the right. Obviously a bad thing.
        Shall-issue means just that if you have the training and background.

        Example of the absurdity of result from may-issue: California CCW are state-wide permits. Get one, carry legally anywhere in the state. But the permits are issued only by local authorities: county sheriffs or city police chiefs. The City and County of San Francisco has one single permit issued, and is fanatically anti-gun. Getting caught with an unpermitted gun there would be one of the few matters that would wake the hype-woke prosecutor into doing some prosecution. But there are many jurisdictions in California that issue CCW permits reasonably. So SF can be swarming with legal gun carriers who live hundreds of miles away, while none of the 883,00 (minus 1) residents has the slightest chance of getting a CCW, notwithstanding the high danger from violent crime and home burglary.

        In summary, it is to be hoped that SCOTUS will hold that all permit-issuing states must be shall-issue.

    2. Please cite where criminal checks and training are mandated in the 2nd Amendment. You can read, presumably. The 2nd Amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t mandate societal disposition of criminals. Penalties must be increased to the maximum level. If criminals are not deterred, they must be neutralized with extreme prejudice. The Constitution holds dominion in America, not the ——- criminals. Crime does not pay, right? Or does it?

  2. Amy Keller raped and killed Nov 5th 2016 Queens NYC. Amy served two tours in Iraq and had extensive gun training, she worked was denied a conceal carry permit seven months earlier after she was first assaulted and robbed at gun point on her way home from work at 11:15 at night.. Amy was my sister.

  3. Exactly who the —- do the Justices of the Supreme Court think they are? This decision must be a prevarication-free 9-0 with a narrative no longer than the amendment itself. Justices of the Supreme Court, actual Americans don’t want your verbose, flamboyant and histrionic opera of prima donnas. Actual Americans want objective juridical adjudication.

    The Justices have no concept of or appreciation for American freedom. The Justices can’t grasp that they have no power to wield. They have no authority to insidiously manipulate a decision in pursuit of a political goal. The people are provided maximal freedom while government is severely limited and restricted by the Constitution. The Justices actually support the principles of the Communist Manifesto, which illicitly and de facto holds dominion in America.

    All Americans are capable of reading the Constitution and making this decision. The 2nd Amendment is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute. Americans have the right to keep and to BEAR arms. That one does not like that right, does not abrogate that right. That one does not like the Constitution, does not abrogate the Constitution. The Supreme Court is compelled to be objective. The Supreme Court is subjective, political, rogue, tyrannical and unconstitutional.

    The Justices of the SCOTUS took an oath to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, not to modify, modify through “interpretation,” amend, violate or subvert the Constitution. Justices who violate the Constitution, which provides the requirement for Justices to take the oath, must be impeached and convicted with extreme prejudice for abuse of power, usurpation of power, dereliction of duty, defection, treason, etc. The SCOTUS is not elected and is not subject to any control other than impeachment – a process which must be streamlined and accelerated to accommodate burgeoning demand.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    _________________

    2nd Amendment

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    1. 2nd Amendment

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      ********

      For a sentence that’s just one & half lines long & it’s meaning is plain, simple & clear as day, no gov permission required, the SC & Tyrants can’t quit scheming ways & volumes books of legalese to completely destroy the meaning of one people’s main Freedoms, another God Given Right even after well over 200 years.

      Maybe for everyone that wishes to regulate to death the Right or do away with it completely maybe we require that they have to have an ankle cuff locked to just one cement block stripped to their leg for a couple of years for them to think about the difference between them being a Free Man vs being a Slave.

    2. George Did you not see the obit for the rule of law under the Dem Socialists? From the day DT became the Repub candidate, I will allege they attempted a coup from Obama, DOJ, FBI, CIA, and on down. The Steel Dossier has disclosed a number of lies and liars.The Dems see the US Constitution as a secondary manuscript to utilize when and if they choose to apply a law or laws against one. Depends on their agenda as to wether it is utilized or rejected. John Durham report could probably verify, but the DOJ will never allow that to surface.Did Joe Biden lift his hand and swear to uphold the US Constitution and defend it? Yep. Has he done such? Nope. One example The US has incurred an illegal alien invasion from the Southern Border and Biden just occupies his replica basement located oval office position, and the puppeteers continue to govern for their agendas. Selah

  4. The real risk here of a “Slippery Slope” is one could make a strong argument that legal First Amendment activity (ie: violent movies, violent video games, violet music lyrics, etc.) are actually a greater threat. The First Amendment is a greater threat than the Second Amendment? It’s not just guns but people prone to violence.

    Do we also outlaw Clint Eastwood movies, Video games, music? What about the violent parts of the Bible?

    1. Yep – There is a link between all the items listed in the Bill of Rights. If left-wingers insisted you fill out a Gov’t form, before exercising your right to publish a political editorial or before creating and posting a political cartoon–the entire country would be in an uproar. But, when it comes to everyone’s gun rights–there’s no shortage of folks who are more than willing to infringe upon them, with registrations, controls and outright bans. Probably everyone agrees that convicted felons should not be allowed to own guns. However, beyond that things get a lot less clear. Walmart recently announced they no longer wanted folks to legally carry guns inside their stores. That leaves law-abiding citizens at greater risk in those very large, often dark (with no “Security Personnel” anywhere around), parking lots. So, whatever bans are made always have a dangerous downside. Look at large inner cities, most like NY, Chicago, LA, etc. ban gun ownership & gun carry. Yet, crime is rampant. Leading me to conclude, the fewer gun regulations the better.

      1. Other constitutional provisions place limits on the state to keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

        Consider the 4th Amendment. It restricts the ability of the police to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. This means the street thug and the gangbanger may get away with their crimes, which enables murder. Not only that, the 4th Amendment is unique to the United States of America. Surely the police in Paris, Lagos, or Singapore do not worry about the 4th Amendment, probable cause, or the exclusionary rule. They just look for evidence.

        Why not follow the example of other countries?

        Or what about the 5th or 6th Amendments?

        How many more street thugs and gangbangers could we catch if we could make them testify against themselves? Or why even bother with trials? Why not trust the police to judge who is and is not guilty? How much more difficult would it be to commit murder- let alone get away with murder- if we let the police judge whether or not a street thug or gangbanger is guilty?

        Or what about the 14th amendment? What if there were certain racial demographics in the U.S. that commit murder at a significantly higher rate than the general population? Why should not the police focus on those demographics? Why should not lawmakers place extra restrictions on the liberties of people in those crime-prone demographics. Would it not be worth it if it prevented one murder?

        Why do we need civil rights at all, given how they tie the hands of the state?

  5. Reality Check: “Sensitive Places” will always include courthouses and judges/justices’ top duty is to interpret the legal boundaries of “constitutionality” in their constitutional Judicial Review authority.

    The U.S. Constitution and it’s subordinate local, state and federal statutes must comply with the Judicial Branch’s legal and constitutional boundaries, so there will always be “sensitive places” – that will never change. You would literally be going to court to ask judges to weaken their own security.

  6. The idea that we should all walk around with guns on our side like the wild west is a fools notion and would relegate us to being a 3rd world anarchist nation where people are murdered as commonly as they’re cut off in traffic. The inane arguments by gun fanatics , losers who need a gun to put in what God left out in order to feel safe walking through the grocery store.it also omits the factual history of the “wild west”, being a huge fan of which I myself am well aware as is anyone who cracks open a historical book as opposed to a comic book, and ignores that while guns were carried openly in rural areas, the only way the west was able to be civilized by the rough and ready lawmen was by implementing ordnances in the towns where the carrying of guns in town was prohibited. Because unlike the idiots arguing for the nra, the fact is men like Bill Hickok and Wyatt Earp knew that booze and firearms don’t mix, and they don’t work well in populated areas or in good commerce. So they outlawed guns in town and anyone who knows the true story of the ok corral knows the fight happened over carrying arms in town. They didn’t like each other to begin with, but it was violation of the town ordnance to that set the stage for the shootout in a dusty corral on the outskirts of town. Guns in cities are a bad idea, and they don’t make for “more polite people” as the fools arguments go, they make for anarchy. The inane notion that a gun is a good defense against city muggings ignores the thousands of other 🚸 pedestrians who will be in the line of fire when some wannabe pills their firearm on a crowded city street. Countless articles that somehow keep getting buried in the media convey just how easy it is for some private citizen to accidentally kill another in attempting to stop a criminal, the most glaring still burned in my brain of the knucklehead in Texas who pulled his sidearm to stop a car jacking at a gas station and ended up shooting the victim in the head instead of the carjacker, although that’s just one of many. People walking around with guns in a city is a fools notion, and omits our historical knowledge and experience on the subject.

    That being said rural communities should be fairly open on it. as guns tend to do fine in rural communities which is how we have historically seen the issue. And additionally, that being said I’d be fine if they did open up carrying guns openly in cities because I don’t go near them anyway, and can’t stand cities or most of the busybodies and loons that inhabit them,… so I could care less if they all blow each other’s heads 😜🤠 off… and thereby decrease the surplus population.

    Ok,…say your dirties….I have to get to work.

    1. Ok,…say your dirties….I have to get to work.”
      *************************
      Naw, typically the best policy here is to ignore opinions without factual and empirical bases.

    2. Have you seen the sick totalitarian mf’ers running the government these days? *They are why we do NOT ever surrender our 2A rights.

    3. Except urban areas are where people have the greater need for self-defense.

      The official statistics don’t support your proposition.

      I’m glad that you can enjoy the privilege of never needing to protect yourself or your family. I hope that your luck continues to hold.

      1. I never thought of it much either, until while at the drug store one evening, picking up a prescription with my 5 year old on my hip, and I looked behind me in line to find a violent drug dealer whom I had arrested a week or so prior staring at us. It was THEN that the reason for carrying a weapon became clear – it was the only thing standing between me, my family, and a truly evil, violent person.

    4. The idea that we should all walk around with guns on our side like the wild west is a fools notion and would relegate us to being a 3rd world anarchist nation where people are murdered as commonly as they’re cut off in traffic

      Move to Richmond, and you will complain you cant buy enough ammo.

    5. Typical white, privileged, beta male, telling us minorities how to live our lives or protect ourselves and families.
      Makes a blowhard statement without realistic facts or figures, then runs away.

      Again, typical white, privileged, beta male.

      1. Yep, and no evidence to support the position. He also missed the lesson about “An armed society is a polite society.” And the part where you only get a bunch of murderers when you are in a population where murder is acceptable and not severely punished (another issue that the beta male society seems to be pushing – don’t punish criminals). Somebody should do the data on homicides per thousand compared to percentage of population that carries concealed weapons. THAT would be revealing!

    6. Wow, I wasn’t kidding huh?

      Come home from work and find one moron blathering about my typos, as if I’m going to “edit” some comment I thumb-typed on my phone while eating breakfast this morning for a bunch of cackling squawking do nothing trolls, … another moron who obviously can’t read and for some reason thinks I live in a city and therefore must not own guns, another one I’m surprised had the audacity to even open his mouth after going back on his word publicly several months ago to crawl out from behind his monkey cage and put his identity behind his words, another particularly dense troll who called me a “privileged white beta male”, which is hilarious given he’s the chickens$$# hiding behind a fake name and cartoon pic and thinks a 61 year old tree climber who has to do one of the most physical and demanding not to mention dangerous jobs out there just to eek out a meager living into his senior years, .. is somehow “privileged”, … maybe I should take him to work with me one day and make him do my job for a couple hours assuming he could, which he of course can’t but assuming he could, then he can show me where this privileged part is at because I must’ve missed it. Then there’s the moron who claims I’m anti gun blah blah blah, … and other assorted idiotic nonsense. I expected nothing more from these clowns, mostly because they never read or respond to what you write, they respond to what they make up and invent about you and what you wrote, which is why I don’t waste my time on the likes of them. When I come home from work and they’ve filled up my inbox with their idiotic babble like this I just unsubscribe from the comments and get on with my evening.

      Life’s too d@mn short to waste on the likes of these.

    7. 40K highway deaths annually.

      The idea that we should drive around with our cars seat-belted to us like the Indy 500 is a fool’s notion.

      America needs a no-drive Supreme Court decision.

      Put the cars in their garages and leave them there.

      Those things are dangerous and may go off at any time.

  7. The division on the right of the Court may come on how to address limitations or bans for “sensitive places.” Barrett suggested that large gatherings may qualify as such places and warrant restrictions.

    How about a Christmas party? The worst I’ve been to.

    There was company Xmas party. One guy stood out. It was a cop with a gun knocking off drinks at the bar. His girl friend dumped this cop. The word spread around & someone called 911. The cop was busted for drinking while on duty.

  8. Did we listen to the same Oral argument? My impression is that all 9 Justices are:

    1) not interested in themselves being the ones to try to balance public safety with gun rights
    2) acutely aware of how SCOTUS upsetting the status quo could make public places venues for gun showdowns and intimidations
    3) convinced that the case before them is NOT one of injury due to eclipse of self-defense rights, but rather a test case of gun activists who
    have no extent injury.
    4) not that interested in shifting still more power to the zealous individual against the legitimate interests of the community

    Therefore, I predict a nothingburger in the decision on this case.

    1. Therefore, I predict a nothingburger in the decision on this case.

      SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to decide nothing. Right now, an individual has to make a compelling case for the exercise of their 2nd amendment rights. That’s fundamentally wrong. The state should be required to make a compelling case to restrict 2nd amendment rights. I predict SCOTUS will flip the authority of the licensing board to permitting all applications for concealed carry with a narrow definition of conditions that may be used to deny a permit to an individual.

    2. 3) convinced that the case before them is NOT one of injury due to eclipse of self-defense rights,

      Of course not! The second ammendment has nothing to do with self defense. Evan Justices leaning to the right, push the lie. The 2cnd amendment stops the government from taking arms away from the citizens.
      Governments like New York, and New York City. know they cant take guns away, so they instead place such a high hurdle (infringment) in front of the People, that they are effectively disarmed.

      When the Justices spend such a long time asking about self defense, I feel like the 2cnd ammendment is already on its death bed. SCOTUS has abandoned their duty to stop the govt from stripping the citizens of God given rights.

  9. Barrett was expected to take an expansive approach to the Second Amendment and now here in her first crack at this fundamental right she’s mulling the possibility of permissable restrictions as nebulous as “sensitive places”. Here’s hoping she’s merely testing theories put before her and formulating defenses to such limitations. If not, could she be a bigger disappointment? Well there’s always going to be Roberts’ depth of unprincipled jurisprudence, so perhaps so.

    1. FriscoDB,

      “Barrett was expected to take an expansive approach to the Second Amendment and now here in her first crack at this fundamental right she’s mulling the possibility of permissable restrictions as nebulous as “sensitive places”. “

      Gun rights can be limited just as free speech can. Even the late justice Antonin Scalia recognized that limits can be imposed. No right is absolute.

  10. Newly elected NYC Mayor Eric Adams has a carry & conceal license

    “From now on, I will bring my handgun every time I enter a church or synagogue,” NYC Mayor elect Eric Adams, a retired police captain who was then mulling his current run for New York City mayor, said, encouraging trained police officers to do the same.

    Eric knows his street homies want some Biden cash from the $3.5 Trillion deal. It’s called cherry picking…..Poof gone….And business has been good!

  11. Roberts suggested that there may be legitimate prohibitions for places like university campuses ….

    How convenient. That is where all of our nation’s troubles began.

    Written from my university “safe space”.

    😉

    1. Well, universities are havens for alcohol consumption too. Young adults still emotionally maturing and still making stupid decisions and allowing guns into the mix? Personal responsibility and college student are almost an oxymoron. Do you really think that’s a good idea?

      Any school shooting at a university campus is going to make anyone in that campus with a gun a threat to any responding authorities.

      1. I disagree with both propositions.

        You can’t have it both ways. Either college-age adults have rights, or they don’t. In the 60s we were chanting “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.” Same rationale – old enough to fulfill other adult roles and responsibilities, old enough to exercise the right of self-defense. Again – create free-fire zones where somebody wanting to kill can do so without any fear of a response? No thank you.

        And there is absolutely no evidence that legally armed persons are any threat to responding authorities. To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that legally armed persons terminate or limit the actions of those inclined to violent murder.

        Do we not want to let facts and logic interfere with our arguments that only can support a police state?

        Actually, I have another idea. Let’s make the public (particularly anti-gunners) civilly liable for anyone killed. by a violent criminal that is not protected by the police. It makes no sense for the police (the government) have no duty to protect (the “public duty doctrine,” DeShaney v. County of Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), on one hand, and to deny citizens the right to protect themselves on the other. Just keeping good people at risk, stuck in the middle, is just plain wrong.

        1. Skipkirkwood,

          “ And there is absolutely no evidence that legally armed persons are any threat to responding authorities.”

          Authorities have no ability to discern friend from foe in an active shooting. A man doing exactly what many say would be the correct scenario to use a gun was killed by police.

          “ Johnny Hurley carried a concealed weapon so he could defend himself and others should there ever be a threat, his friends said.

          When the moment came on Monday, he drew his weapon and charged toward a gunman in Olde Town Arvada only to be killed a short time later by a responding Arvada police officer, investigators said. Hurley was holding the gunman’s AR-15 after shooting him when the officer arrived, police said.

          Hurley’s death once again sparked questions about how Colorado law enforcement reacts to armed people who are acting lawfully in self-defense.”

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defense/amp/

          In a university campus a student bent on killing someone on campus won’t be challenged by an another armed student. The police will only know that a student will be on campus killing people. Anyone holding a gun out will be suspect or shot.

          1. Sorry, man – your N of 1 doesn’t add much. I’ve had enough “active shooter” and armed interaction training to know when to shoot and when not to shoot. It seems that some of our nation’s police could use a little more exposure to that – and a little more assessment before dropping the hammer.

          2. Anecdotes are what unintelligent people use to prove something. Anecdotes lead to questions. Raw data leads to conclusions, but you wouldn’t know that.

              1. Skip, you are on target. My comment was directed to Svelaz. You can see it by the indentations above but on the email I can see the confusion. I think there was a WordPress error based on the email I have received.

                Just so you know I believe people should not confront police officers arrogantly. The job is tough and dangerous enough. If they have a problem, they can handle it at the precinct. I rarely get a ticket, but when I do I thank the police officer and wish him a good day.

                I had a problem with an officer who overstepped his bounds. I thought he might have been new. I called the captain of the precinct and told him what happened. Then I told him that after he looks into my complaint and the officer that he should use his own judgement. I would not file a complaint to hurt the officer unless the Captain felt it was needed.

                1. Understand. Thanks. Yep, afterward, cool and professional works very well. Unfortunately, it is SOOOO rare, sometimes the higher-ups will have no idea what is happening and may be thrown off balance. But no other way stands a chance in hell. If I had a dollar for every official who got a citation or went to jail after starting his conversation with, “Obviously you don’t know who I am…….” Yep, and I don’t really care. Put your hands behind your back……

                  Be well.

      2. Yet you see no reason to limit those same young adults voting…..so why your double standard?

        Mere possession of a firearm does not make one a threat to any “responding authority”….it takes an overt act by the person possessing/holding the firearm.

        Though I have grave concerns about College Students. having firearms….it is about general concerns for safety and the potential lack of proper training and not wanting the firearm in the hands of an un-trained incompetent person….no matter what age or situation.

        College Kids today are at greater risk from their Cell Phones, iPads, and Selfie Sticks than from a properly trained and qualified gun owner.

        The other thought is how quickly a School Shooting can be ended by a competent gun owner long before the Police can arrive which in the long term would save far more Lives than currently happens.

        It is not a simple issue. There is good and the not good about the Guns on Campus thing.

        In an environment where far too many are terrified of Free Speech….perhaps arming that population with firearms is fraught with peril……just as in letting them vote also poses a threat.

        1. There is good and the not good about the Guns on Campus thing.

          Guns are not the problem. People pull triggers. If Leftists do not trust college students with guns because they are emotionally stunted (true), maldeveloped (true), incompetent to make adult decisions (true), then:

          No transgender switches, no abortions, no voting and definitely no signing of promissory notes for educational loans

          Phew, so glad we addressed the elephant in the room

          🤡

        2. Ralph Chappell,

          “ Yet you see no reason to limit those same young adults voting…..so why your double standard?” it’s not a double standard. Voting doesn’t pose the risk of being killed if you make the wrong decision.

          “ Mere possession of a firearm does not make one a threat to any “responding authority”….it takes an overt act by the person possessing/holding the firearm.”

          Yes mere possession of a firearm is deemed a potential threat to any officer. No officer will treat anyone with a firearm as someone with good intentions. They are never trained to believe that. Plus any cop seeing someone running with a firearm withdrawn will automatically assume that person is a threat. That’s why it’s fools to go play hero in such situations.

          The whole point of the right to bear arms is for SELF defense. Not being a hero. This is taught in concealed gun carry courses. You have that gun to protect YOURSELF when directly threatened.

          1. Obviously you’re not a LEO, nor have you ever been one. So stop making false statements (or statements about stuff you know nothing about). We are trained to approach EVERYBODY as though they might be armed. I’d much rather KNOW that a person is armed than not know. And the vast majority of lawfully armed people are no threat whatsoever to an officer. They have been screened and vetted, and trained, and more importantly they have willingly complied with the law. The last time I officially interacted with a city police officer (yep, broken tail light!), I gave him my driver license and CCW document, and told him I was armed. He asked me, “Where is the gun,” and I told him. His response was, “Fine. You don’t show me yours and I won’t show you mine.” “Get that light fixed.” Thanks, Officer. Be safe out here! About 10% of our population holds. CCW licenses (which means about 15% of adults), and – no problem.

            1. Skipkirkwood,

              Are you a former LEO?

              “ They have been screened and vetted, and trained, and more importantly they have willingly complied with the law.”

              Not everyone is screened and vetted and trained. In some states no training is required. A minimum of a background check is required, but often that is no guarantee that the individual is law abiding.

            2. “The last time I officially interacted with a city police officer (yep, broken tail light!), I gave him my driver license and CCW document, and told him I was armed. He asked me, “Where is the gun,” and I told him. His response was, “Fine. You don’t show me yours and I won’t show you mine.”

              I wish, when in contact with the police, yours would be the typical discussion. Too many are arrogant. The policeman carries a gun to protect society. He is looking to prevent trouble and has to protect himself as well. Why people are so arrogant that they don’t comply with rightful police orders is beyond my understanding. The time for confrontation is at the police station with the captain of the department, not the policeman, who is risking his life every time he acts to help others.

              1. I agree. In training, they even teach us that about plainclothes and off-duty interactions. You may be might, you might outrank the other guy, but the uniform always gets obeyed in the moment. Sort out your differences later, in a controlled environment.

    2. Estovir,

      That line from Roberts caught my eye as well…these are notions/concerns that real world experience don’t support. Texas universities are limited by law in their ability to restrict concealed carry on campus and that protection of the individual’s self-defense right has presented no safety issues thus far. By way of example, I am aware of many students at Texas A&M, including my son and his girlfriend, who carry firearms on campus. Such “sensitive spaces” are indeed safer because they do so.

  12. Curious, some wanted an end to stop, ask, and then frisk if there seemed to be a problem. The policy was removing guns from precisely those people that should never have them, gangsters and gang members. Those guns were illegal and killed innocent people, including children.

    On the other hand, they wish to remove guns from good citizens that want to protect themselves from these monsters.

    What can be their objective? The destruction of American society. That is why many of the same people support permitting illegal aliens that have committed murder and rape to run free.

    The people of this nation must join together and stop the left. People have to learn how the left lies and deceives.

    1. Illegal aliens can legally own guns. They can purchase as many as they want. Just as you do. Being an illegal alien doesn’t automatically make them murderers or rapists.

      Gang members who have no criminal convictions can legally own guns too. After all they have much bigger reasons to defend themselves than most people. Should a gang member be punished for defending himself?

      1. Which really goes to show that it is all about controlling the law abiding citizens, not having any real impact on violence or crime. The term is “Res Ipsa Loquitur,” – the thing speaks for itself.

      2. Illegal aliens can legally own guns.

        I’m surprised know one has asked you for a citation to prove your claim. So prove it.

        [18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]

        1. Olly, Svelaz has been wrong on almost every issue. I refused to give him the added information you provided because he is a pr-ck and prefers to hide his ignorance by outlandish statements and running away. I don’t know what it is with guys like him who believe ignorance is a badge of honor.

      3. “Illegal aliens can legally own guns.”

        Svelaz, let’s first deal with how you waste time. You made all sorts of ridiculous comments about fascism and a bunch of other isms. You were shown why you were wrong on multiple occasions, but you ran away from those responses that demonstrated where you went afoul.

        Now leaving so many other discussions in the same position, you wish to make another dumb mistake so you can run away and repeat the error again and again. I will post an earlier reply to you because I want to hear answers before investing more time with a person who doesn’t care about the truth.
        —-

        Yes, defining fascism is difficult, but it has defining characteristics that differ drastically from the classical liberal/ libertarian. It is the characteristics that determine the different brands of fascism. No ideology is entirely pure, but Marx at times referred to socialism and communism interchangeably. The meanings behind socialism have radically changed.

        Democratic socialism incorporates some of socialism and is a new construct. Democratic states such as Sweden often pointed to HAVING private property. Capitalism depends on private property. Libertarianism and classical liberalism also rely on private property. There are varying degrees and types of control over businesses in the fascistic states, fascism, nazism, socialism and communism. Though some would say, the state ceases to exist in a pure communist state.

        When you look at the various ideologies, you need to note the similarities and differences of their significant characteristics.

        There is private property and less central control in classical liberalism, libertarianism and capitalism (economic).
        Nazism, socialism, fascism have central control. These forms of government look towards larger government and powers over what is printed along with freedom of speech.

        Separate nationalism from the ideologies because all of the ideologies can be nationalistic and militaristic or not. Part of the split between Stalin and Trotsky had to do with their perception of nationalism and militarism along with expansionism.

        In the end, fascism is hard to define because it can be defined in many different ways, but Italian fascism, nazism, and socialism come from the same seed.

        1. S. Meyer,

          I see you’re still obsessing over a discussion on fascism that you ended up having with yourself. I didn’t run away. As I have said before I don’t spend the entirety of my day on this blog. Besides you eventually answered your own questions regarding fascism. You rambled on and on until you essentially arrived at the beginning of your circular discussion. There was no point in engaging in it. Clearly you were stuck in a loop.

          1. You wrote: ““Illegal aliens can legally own guns. “
            I responded: WRONG! Look up Chapter 18 of the US Code.

            I added to that how error ridden you are and that you act like a jacka$$ because most of the time you run away like you did with the fascism argument and pretend it was the fault of the other person.

            Nope, you acted stupid there and you acted stupid this time as well though you realized you were caught once again. This has happened numerous times with you so I have decided to point out those things that you keep repeating that are WRONG by reposting. It saves me time.

      4. “Illegal aliens can legally own guns. “

        WRONG!

        Look up Chapter 18 of the US Code. I could quote this stuff for you and give the number, but you are a time waster who will make a dumb error and repeat it over and over no matter what proof is brought to the table. You ignore the proof and then repeat your dumb claim.

        I await the completion of our previous discussion on facsism and the isms.

        1. Svelez is trolling the blog once again. I provided the citation and now Svelez should be ignored until he/she proves the claim made.

          1. Olly, you seem to have jumped the gun in your response. I was looking up the statute corresponding to illegal aliens being able to own guns in the country.

            Yes I was wrong. They are not allowed to. My confusion was with legal residents rather than undocumented immigrants.

            I can admit when I’m wrong. That cannot be said about many on this blog.

            1. Olly, you seem to have jumped the gun in your response.

              Svelez, you have that absolutely bass ackwards. You jumped the gun on your initial comment before looking up the statute. I looked it up and replied to you: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/04/locked-and-loaded-the-supreme-court-argument-appears-to-confirm-a-major-gun-rights-victory-in-the-making/comment-page-1/#comment-2133996

              I commend you for admitting to your error, but just own it and move on.

          2. Svelaz admits his stupidity that the average ignorant guy would have recognized to be stupid in the first place.

            But, what was his first consideration? To apologize? No. The first thing this turkey did was to shift the blame: “Olly, you seem to have jumped the gun in your response.”

            That is the arrogance of this stupid guy. Then he explains his confusion. He mixed up legals with illegals. That tells us how he thinks or doesn’t.

            Then with tremendous hubris, he says: “I can admit when I’m wrong,” which is pure BS. He had to be pushed into admitting that but only after blaming you.

            Thanksgiving is coming soon. Maybe he won’t be with us after Thanksgiving.

            1. At best, Svelez knew it was wrong and was merely trolling the blog. I suspect however that it was simply his standard kneejerk comment to oppose the conservative position and he was embarrassed at how provably wrong he was. His ilk are constantly on the attack. When was the last time they’ve been forced to defend the policies of this administration?

    2. Wait a second…the reason those gang members carry guns is self-defense, to which they have a 2nd Amendment right! Unlike most Americans in the suburbs, these concealed carrier face real threats of violence on a daily/weekly basis.

  13. If 5 justices don’t like the vagueness of good moral character, they won’t replace it with the equally vague sensitive places.

  14. It’s great that Conservatives on the high court are using “historical methodology” – essentially interpreting the letter & spirit of individual amendments, articles and clauses for modern circumstances which would expand gun owners’ rights. Most of us are all for that, but why doesn’t the same “methodology” apply to post-9/11 abuses (ie: Cointelpro, torture, etc) or War on Drug abuses (ie: Driving while Black, Terry v. Ohio, etc) using that same conservative constitutional due process?

    The American system legally requires a “constitutional-amendment” to change the letter & spirit of the supreme law of the land. Why is it okay for 2nd Amendment gun rights, but not the “historical methodology” for the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights of women, African-Americans, LGBT-Americans and other individuals?

    In the 21st Century – for the first time in over 200 years – America practiced torture, kidnappings, gulags (imprisonment without judge, jury, trial and without a guilty verdict), Rubber-Stamp FISA courts, Cointelpro style blacklisting, threatening journalist with the Espionage Act, etc. without using “historical methodology”. What changed with this case? Politics?

      1. Re: Skip

        Maybe America’s great evil of our lifetime is Cointelpro style blacklisting – robbing innocent Americans of “legal standing” in court. Without confrontation, without judge, without jury and without guilty verdict. The feds coined the term “Cointelpro” but it likely originated at the local level and infected the federal justice system.

        These are felony level crimes, perpetrated by constitutionally oath sworn officials. Judicial Branch judges and justices never see these cases – can’t rule on what they can’t see. Basically felonies with no police or prosecutors to investigate or enforce these crimes. For example: a US Department of Justice that green lights torture isn’t going to police Cointelpro crimes by it’s own employees.

        Using the government’s own records, there over 1 million persons on the various watchlists (blacklists) and their own records indicate the terrorism-conviction rate is less than 1%. Apparently the way to legitimize this 20 years after 9/11 is to mission-creep terrorism laws to be applied to Americans (ie: January 6 event, environmental terrorists that never killed anyone and other groups).

        If we have a terrorism-conviction rate with a 99% failure rate, they have to mission-creep (using terrorism laws for non-terrorism cases) in order to make Cointelpro style blacklisting and unconstitutional searches appear legitimate.

        This may be the real test for this U.S. Supreme Court – understanding and policing Cointelpro style blacklisting. It’s not clear they understand what is really happening the past few decades. How do you police something when the crime victim is robbed of “legal standing” to seek Judicial Branch relief? This is a new constitutional question of our century.

        1. First, “watch list” and “black list” are not the same things. Not even close. So the false equivalency rings loud.

          Second, there are lots of smart people who look at things like this, including (gulp!) the ACLU. I read a lot of cases, and I haven’t seen or heard of reports of these cases being brought and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Cointelpro is kind of old news – and of course one person’s political activity is another’s terroristic action. Depends on the actions, so nothing wrong with looking at it.

          Methinks that our institutions do a pretty good (but not perfect) job of keeping abuses in check.

          1. Skip, the “Confrontation Clause” is an amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Most police and prosecutors are good but if the goal is to never “confront” the accused or person of interest, this is an incentive to literally frame people and virtually little risk to the official. Confrontation is the foundation of the American Justice system and the most accurate factor in truth seeking – confronting the suspect or person of interest.

            In this unconstitutional shadow-Justice system it allows totalitarian surveillance of anyone – totally bypassing the Judicial Branch judges. Bush AG John Ashcroft created an environment for “Cointelpro On Steroids” – according to the ACLU in November 2001. Ask the ACLU about it.

            The problem is judges and justices don’t seem to understand what Cointelpro blacklisting tactics are and for 20 years have done little to outlaw it.

            1. I’m still looking – 40+ years in public safety, including working with some very fancy 3-letter and 4-letter federal agencies, and the only “watch lists” I’ve ever seen, heard, or been introduced to are (a) the TSA watch list, and (b) the USSS list of people who have actively threatened the President.

              Can you point me to some credible sources? Or relax a bit……

  15. Identifying “sensitive places” at the highest level of our legal system as places where law abiding citizens cannot carry firearms is literally creating a legalized soft target for people wanting to inflict terror in a place that they know for sure won’t be protected by firearms so they can inflict the most human carnage.

    Who defines sensitive places? The government does.

    The 2nd Amendment is specifically there to limit the power of the government to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

    The Supreme Court of the United States should not use the words or imply that sensitive places are exempted from 2nd Amendment protection rights anywhere in their ruling to do so would be asking for serious trouble down the road.

      1. Except for the small fallacy that he is a murderer. Never been convicted, and the only person he’s shot was in lawful self defense. Please get a grip, or some medicine!

      2. Grung_e_Gene — Oh, has the trial ended? Has he been convicted? Didn’t think so. Here we are talking about the Constitution and law, and you’re arguing against “innocent until proven guilty.”

    1. Witherspoon,

      “ The Supreme Court of the United States should not use the words or imply that sensitive places are exempted from 2nd Amendment protection rights anywhere in their ruling to do so would be asking for serious trouble down the road.”

      So you would be ok with high school students bringing guns into the school? There are states where no training or conceal carry permits are required. Would bullied kids be justified in carrying a gun to protect themselves? In all states you can legally own a gun at 18.

      Should gang members who are legally allowed to have guns be allowed in courthouses? Schools? Government offices? You can be a gang member and still legally acquire a gun if they haven’t been convicted of a crime. They too have 2nd amendment rights.

      1. Pretty silly. Nobody, and certainly not this case, or the Supreme Court, is talking about kids. And by the way, unlawful use of firearms is already unlawful. Creating “no defense zones” where criminals can kill people at will is not the answer.

        1. Witherspoon, being an 18 year old kid and being able to own a gun is lawful. It’s a constitutional right. A “sensitive” place is a school. According to your argument any kid 18 years of age still in high school should be able to carry a gun in school. They can defend themselves from bullies or criminals in school. No? A school is a “no defense zone”.

          1. You continue your fallacies. So – yes, but …… and the “but” is a big one. “Bullying” rarely if ever involves the use of deadly force. So it would be a unique case indeed where it would be appropriate to use a firearm for defense against “bullying” (whatever that is – I haven’t seen a legal definition).

            And your same prohibition would prevent a teacher, a staff member, or a lawfully present adult from ending a potential deadly threat.

            How’s that help?

      2. So you would be ok with high school students bringing guns into the school?

        That was common when I was in highschool some decades ago. I work with a guy who’s daughter came in second in the state High school trap shooting finals. The team came to school with guns, often. 99.9% of the nation is quite sane and reasonable about guns. They understand guns, and judge the people, people can be evil, not guns.

    2. I not addressing completely absurd extrapolations like those from Grung_e_Gene and Svelaz wrote, those kind of nonsense replies are intellectually dishonest false equivalencies, it’s a form of trolling.

      1. Witherspoon,

        They are legitimate questions. You say the Supreme Court is being vague about “sensitive” places. There ARE gang members who have a constitutional right to bear arms just as you do. 18 year olds have that same right. Schools and courthouses are “sensitive” places. According to your argument they should be allowed to bring guns into those places for self defense.

        A gang member who has no convictions can own a gun or guns for self defense. Would you agree that a gang member should have the right to defend himself with a gun?

        Or do you believe that being a gang member makes it automatically illegal for them to have a gun?

          1. TSA-type screening measures. They work at airports and courthouses ….. could easily, if not cheaply, be implemented in schoolhouses.

    3. Does anybody else see the impracticality of drawing the line around “sensitive places”? Where is the concealed carrier supposed to stash the firearm when moving from the street into a sensitive place? Locking the weapon in your vehicle opens it to theft. Should sports arenas, bars and courthouses have a gun check?

      I’m actually very happy with the strict gun laws in my state. I don’t own any guns. I don’t associate with any gun owners.
      And, I’m not paranoid about government becoming a dictatorship that obliges violent overthrow. I like a Japanese or UK approach — the fewer guns owned outside of a supervised chain-of-responsibility, the better.

      Keeping our nation free requires sophistication with informatics and persuasion, not firearms. We’re in the 21st century. To quote Volodymir Zelinsky “Turn your brain on.”

      1. You seem to have lived a very sheltered life. I hope that you are never in a position where you need to defend your safety or your loved ones.

        Talk about privilege!

      2. pbinca wrote, “I don’t own any guns.”

        That’s your choice and you’re free to make that choice.

        pbinca wrote, “I don’t associate with any gun owners.”

        That you know of. I’ve known lots of people that wouldn’t know one way or the other if I own firearms, I don’t share that kind of thing with people plus it’s none of their business.

        Overall pbinca, your comment sounds to me like you are advocating to get rid of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, am I getting the right idea?

        Is this a public safety issue for you?

      3. “’m actually very happy with the strict gun laws in my state. “

        I may or may not own a gun, but that doesn’t matter because loads of my neighbors do. Those that would do me harm don’t know which persons have guns and which persons don’t. Home invasion is very uncommon.

    1. Of course, if “sensitive places” were a legitimate argument, I guess Florida, which has a very liberal right to carry law, would be a shooting gallery at every tailgate party and sporting event in the state. NOT!!!!

  16. Lefties like power (so do conservatives, but not at all costs). The ability to issue or deny is a significant source of power.

    NY has been particularly egregious in granting carry permits to friends and the connected while denying those permits to ordinary people.

    Poor blacks didn’t have a hope in hell of getting a gun permit (let alone a carry permit) in spite of living in high crime areas.

  17. “Sensitive places?” These so-called “sensitive places” may be where guns are most needed for protection. Were the framers of the Constitution unaware of these sensitive places when they adopted the second amendment?

Leave a Reply