David Hogg: This "is a reversal of 200+ years of jurisprudence that will get Americans killed.

[highplainsdem]

Link to tweet

[dchill]

1. "...jurisprudence..." is not a legal concept for Clarence.

It's a punchline. He's insane. Alito is insane. Roberts is an ineffectual creep.

[elias7]

2. It's a slippery slope in reverse as technology results in fancier and deadlier firearms

What if they mass produced mini nukes? Gun humpers will claim any restrictions will be a slippery slope towards infringing on their 2nd amendment rights, with the irony being the slope is moving continually in their favor.

[hack89]

4. The line was drawn in 1934

ordnance and explosive devices have never been considered "arms", not historically or legally. Your mini-nuke argument is a strawman.

[Wednesdays]

5. So, if it's not ordnance or explosive, ANYTHING is fair game?

[hack89]

6. No - the 1934 National Firearms Act drew the line as to what is a legal firearm

perhaps you should go read it - I think you will find it reassuring.

[hack89]

3. A slight over reaction

all NY has to do is implement objective criteria for concealed carry licenses. That was the issue - the old requirements were undefined and completely left up the subjective decision of the police.

[Aroundabout23]

8. Yeah I am sure the DOJ is just overreacting....

Same with Biden... Sure.

[hack89]

9. This ruling only applies to 9 states

those are the only ones left with "may issue" concealed carry. Now NY simply needs to pass laws like the other 41 states have. It is not impossible.

[Aroundabout23]

11. I see. It's not impossible so it is ok.

Again it is the DOJ and Biden that are what? Hysterical?

SO those 9 states just need to pass legislation? That's it? Easy peasy right? I guess we just might have to get it done before elections because we just don't know how those will go at this point.

Here's my concern.... The USSC makes these rulings, people that we respect and elect disagree witht he ruings but people here keep telling us that it isn't that big of a deal. Weird. I have read this site for quite a while and I keep seeing this pattern going and going. I am not saying that is a "you" thing, just a phenomena that I have observed here. I really started noticing it when I heard Hillary warning us and her warnings by some here on this site brushed off. Interesting.

[hack89]

13. They are all solid blue states so legislation should in fact be easy peasy.

Never said DOJ and Biden are hysterical. They are reaching out to a concerned political constituency that is very upset at the moment.

[Aroundabout23]

14. I didn't say that you said that.

I asked if that's what you think they are as they are pretty uset about this ruling. Are they stupid? Hysterical? What are they for questioning this ruling? What is your view of them to come out so strongly against the ruling? Asking a state to just pass a law (which could open those states up to all sorts of other issues) because the court decided to not respect jurisprudence doesn't seem simple or good especially considering the ground that this covers and our current (albeit long history) situation with mass shootings.

[hack89]

17. They are practical people that understand the need to reassure their supporters.

they are not stupid. They are not hysterical.

[Aroundabout23]

20. His statement that it should deeply trouble us all is reassuring?

I don't think Biden is just reassuring us. I think he is sounding an alarm bell here. I think that is quite the opposite of reassuring.


It sure seems to me that the rulings that are coming down are systemic in nature and moving towards an agenda rather than individual rulings. That being my opinion is something that we could agree or disagree on.

[hack89]

24. This ruling applies to 9 states

which will now have to bring their laws into compliance like the other 41 states have. Now if you can show me that shall issue caused a significant increase in gun deaths in those 41 states then perhaps there is something to be concerned about.

Personally, I am more concerned about all those violent people that cannot legally own guns so they carry illegally. They have always been the real threat.

[Aroundabout23]

25. so only roughly 1/5 of the states?

The deeply troubling piece is jurisprudence. Again I ask you is Biden's concern unfounded? Your answer was that he was reassuring his supporters. It is your stance that he was playing politics? That his concern wasn't worth paying attention to? Because it just affects 9 states?

The DOJ were they just reassuring their supporters as well? I am sorry but your statement that 9 states just need to enact legislation while staying under an arbitrary number of gun deaths in the meantime (what exactly is the number for you?) is fairly weak.

Let's be real here there are people that I admire, trust and look to for leadership here that are weighing in on this issue stating that this is a bad decision.

[hack89]

26. This issue can be resolve in a couple of months

every state involved is solidly blue and pro-gun safety - why do you think they were the last holdouts?

Don't you think that NY can pass strict requirements on concealed carry?

[Aroundabout23]

27. Can they?

I don't know can they? You seem to know that they can. Why do they have to? They had a solution on the books. Nationally we have a majority in congress.... but Manchin.

NY could have passed a law before this ruling. But they apparently see a need to or want to. Now they may have to and if it doesn't pass? Then what? Maybe we stay beneath that acceptable number of deaths? Or at least in the meantime hopefully we do. It also throws the state into a bit of a chaos with pulling the rug out from under it. It's ok it will only take a couple of months. Hopefully.

[hack89]

28. NY has the strictest gun control laws in America

with a long history of passing gun control legislation. Why all of a sudden will they turn into NRA supporters?

[Aroundabout23]

30. Who is saying they will?

Any new law they enact will likely be challenged though.

[ripcord]

10. This simply means NY can't deny permits on based on whims and moods

None of the other 41 states who don't have show cause permits have descended into open warfare, NY just need common sense requirements that apply equally to everyone.

[Aroundabout23]

12. How are you asserting that it was whims and moods?

Was there no structure to their program at all?

[hack89]

15. Exactly.

there were no legal definitions or standards by which someone could prove they needed a concealed carry license. It was completely up to the discretion of the police which resulted in a fairness issue - some locations were lenient while others would never issue licenses.

Can we at least agree that laws need to be fair and applied equally?

[Aroundabout23]

16. I cannot agree to anything like that because I don't know if that is true.

You saying it doesn't make it true. I believe that you had to apply for a conceal and carry and it was very difficult to get approved. I don't see how this ruling is going to change that nor do I see how other legislation is going to change that.


For me to agree with you that the law wasn't fair you'd have to show me how it wasn't fair other than saying it wasn't.

[hack89]

19. Perhaps it is now time to actually read the ruling

including all the details. It explains the situation very well.

[Aroundabout23]

21. I read the ruling

Perhaps now is the time that you do not condescendingly make assumptions and hurl them at others?

[ripcord]

22. There is plenty of structure to the process

Right up to the point where one individual gets to decide if you have enough cause to get a permit, rights can't be arbitrarily granted or denied. A rich person who carries a lot of cash would be more likely to get a permit than a poor minority living in a bad area and that is just wrong.

[Aroundabout23]

23. How do you know they would be?

What is the process exactly for confirming or denying someone to have the ability to get a conceal and carry permit?

Also you are calling C&C permit a right here but I don't think that can be true. It has to be a privilege otherwise C&C permits themselves would be unconstitutional no? So while you assert that it is wrong for one person to confirm or deny someone that right.... I don't think that is true as it doesn't seem to be a right at all. For example, driving is a privilege. To attain that privilege I need to pass a driving exam which is observed by an individual. Is that also wrong?

[ripcord]

29. You didn't read the decision did you?

SCOTUS decided that the show cause part of the permitting process infringed on the right to carry a gun outside the home for self defense.

[Aroundabout23]

31. I did read it.

And that's exactly what I disagree with. C&C is not a right. It is a privilege. If it was a right then there would be no need for a permitting process as that in and of itself would be unconstitutional. As far as I know requiring a permit isn't unconstitutional so it must be a privilege. The state is within it's authority to say what it's process is for granting privileges. The same as any other privilege.

[ripcord]

32. According to the SCOTUS carrying a concealed weapon for self defense is a right

We don't have to like it but we do have to deal with that reality.

[Aroundabout23]

33. It cannot be a right because you have to have a permit.

Shall not be infringed does not say shll not be infringed except for requiring a permit.

Did scotus say that C&C is a right? I missed where they explicitly said that C&C is a right. If so than all states permit requirements will be deemed unconstitutional.

[Deep State Witch]

7. They Don't Care

As long as Americans can hump their guns, they don't give a crap who gets killed.

[In It to Win It]

18. SCOTUS, apparently, is entitled to their own facts

They don't care who knows