THE BIG SCOTUS GUN CASE - NATIONAL CARRY
Things I noted from the SCOTUS NY State carry case, while watching the whole thing live on TV:
And let me start by saying the framing of the case was splendid, superb—not do we have rights, but,
"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense." -from the Petitioner's brief. You really have to lie cheat and steal to conclude the Second Amendment is a power grant to the government, not a restriction on them.
"Text, history, tradition" is a set of values the Justices brought up repeatedly. I did not have as much appreciation for this triumvirate as I do now. Their decision will no doubt weigh these factors.
The Court expressed serious concern at the proper level of scrutiny for future 2A cases. Should laws affecting 2A go to court under strict scrutiny (the most stringent, as narrowly drawn as possible, the least restrictive solution and specifically tailored to a compelling government interest); or is intermediate scrutiny sufficient (a reduced level of review for constitutionality involving a developed test); or is rational basis scrutiny sufficient (the lowest level where if it seems OK it's OK, no real accountable measurable scrutiny at all). 2A advocates all hope for strict scrutiny, leftists argue for rational basis, where little stands in the way of violative statutes.
Time-place-and-manner restrictions, which apply to 1A limits are a working model, or at least need attention.
Frequent reference to 1A, especially libel and defamation, totally speech but totally restricted, all within the confines of the Constitution.
The Statute of Northhampton must have gotten a good bit of play in the outside briefs, because it came up a bunch. Need to look at that and see what its relevance is.
Liberal Justices expressed some lament that we don't have national rules, or even that we need some, but 2A is implemented by the state somewhat at their whim, and feds lack police power and they know it so they are blocked. That's not to say they haven't been working on nationalized police in many ways.
The theme of more-guns-more-crime came up, even though it's been debunked so badly and is so evident. Breyer suggested the BITS myth, Blood In The Streets, if everyone is freed to carry, a recurring left-wing myth that defies statistics and evidence to the contrary. Every state that enacted licensed carry suffered under this media-fueled dire prediction of doom. But it never ever occurs. No apologies issued. It just will not die. Sorta like the assumed victims in this fable, who aren’t dead either.
The Terry Frisk, in other word cop stops, was mentioned, and stupidly. If the public is free to carry, then cops suddenly have increased risk, and must change tactics because a vehicle might have a gun! Or the odds of armed vehicles will increase risks. As if cops don't exercise extreme caution in stops, knowing full well a gun can poke out from any window -- illegally. That just suggests these bench warmers are as much lost in vapor and myth when it comes to guns, as anyone not on the bench.
Those are my notes on some highlights of the discussion. Which side will win? The decision will contain a mix of elements, some really good and some not so much, even damaging. If the Second Amendment prevails, the dissenting position will, mark my words, threaten the BITS myth, attack the winning side of endangering the nation, and demonstrate hoplophobia. Petitioners should prevail and NY State will be forced to grant licenses, which NY will hinder and make inadequate, violate the spirit of the decision, require more court hearings, and so it all goes back to court. Hey, lawyers have kids to feed.
And let me start by saying the framing of the case was splendid, superb—not do we have rights, but,
"Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense." -from the Petitioner's brief. You really have to lie cheat and steal to conclude the Second Amendment is a power grant to the government, not a restriction on them.
"Text, history, tradition" is a set of values the Justices brought up repeatedly. I did not have as much appreciation for this triumvirate as I do now. Their decision will no doubt weigh these factors.
The Court expressed serious concern at the proper level of scrutiny for future 2A cases. Should laws affecting 2A go to court under strict scrutiny (the most stringent, as narrowly drawn as possible, the least restrictive solution and specifically tailored to a compelling government interest); or is intermediate scrutiny sufficient (a reduced level of review for constitutionality involving a developed test); or is rational basis scrutiny sufficient (the lowest level where if it seems OK it's OK, no real accountable measurable scrutiny at all). 2A advocates all hope for strict scrutiny, leftists argue for rational basis, where little stands in the way of violative statutes.
Time-place-and-manner restrictions, which apply to 1A limits are a working model, or at least need attention.
Frequent reference to 1A, especially libel and defamation, totally speech but totally restricted, all within the confines of the Constitution.
The Statute of Northhampton must have gotten a good bit of play in the outside briefs, because it came up a bunch. Need to look at that and see what its relevance is.
Liberal Justices expressed some lament that we don't have national rules, or even that we need some, but 2A is implemented by the state somewhat at their whim, and feds lack police power and they know it so they are blocked. That's not to say they haven't been working on nationalized police in many ways.
The theme of more-guns-more-crime came up, even though it's been debunked so badly and is so evident. Breyer suggested the BITS myth, Blood In The Streets, if everyone is freed to carry, a recurring left-wing myth that defies statistics and evidence to the contrary. Every state that enacted licensed carry suffered under this media-fueled dire prediction of doom. But it never ever occurs. No apologies issued. It just will not die. Sorta like the assumed victims in this fable, who aren’t dead either.
The Terry Frisk, in other word cop stops, was mentioned, and stupidly. If the public is free to carry, then cops suddenly have increased risk, and must change tactics because a vehicle might have a gun! Or the odds of armed vehicles will increase risks. As if cops don't exercise extreme caution in stops, knowing full well a gun can poke out from any window -- illegally. That just suggests these bench warmers are as much lost in vapor and myth when it comes to guns, as anyone not on the bench.
Those are my notes on some highlights of the discussion. Which side will win? The decision will contain a mix of elements, some really good and some not so much, even damaging. If the Second Amendment prevails, the dissenting position will, mark my words, threaten the BITS myth, attack the winning side of endangering the nation, and demonstrate hoplophobia. Petitioners should prevail and NY State will be forced to grant licenses, which NY will hinder and make inadequate, violate the spirit of the decision, require more court hearings, and so it all goes back to court. Hey, lawyers have kids to feed.
I had previously accepted the weapons permit system since it allowed the Authorities to arrest and prosecute any "prohibited person" who was carrying, however since the Authorities generally don't prosecute "prohibited persons" for political reasons, there is no reason for a permit system that only affects law-abiding "normies". The permit system has become only a way to disarm the oponents of the Democrats/Progressives who might be tempted to defend themselves from attack. It has become obvious that armed citizens are no threat to others. The fantasy of violence and bloodshed is, however, a characteristic of the Democratic urban strongholds.
Posted by: Mike-SMO | Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:08 PM
It has, and always will, remain the same;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is simple, in plain English. If you can speak even a modicum of the English language you can understand it. It is not open for personal interpretation or semantic obfuscation. It means exactly what it says, no more, no less. You cannot distort it in any manner you choose. No amount of buts, if's, how's, or why's, will alter its meaning.
Posted by: enn ess | Monday, November 29, 2021 at 01:39 PM