Gun control advocates nervous as Supreme Court takes up first 2nd Amendment case in a decade

Apr 2012
82,094
6,685
This does not look good for the democrat gun control nuts

Gun control advocates nervous as Supreme Court takes up first 2nd Amendment case in a decade

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to wade into the highly charged gun control debate for the first time in nearly a decade, hearing oral arguments in a dispute over a New York City gun restriction that could have major implications for gun rights nationwide.

The court has steadfastly declined to take up any gun rights cases since ruling in 2008's Washington, D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment provides a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, and later clarifying in 2010's McDonald v. Chicago that the right applies nationwide. Now the court's willingness to take the New York case — even though the law at issue was recently repealed — has gun rights supporters feeling optimistic that it could lead to a ruling about the right to bear arms outside the home.


Gun control advocates, in contrast, fear the court's new conservative majority may produce a decision that the National Rifle Association could use to fight against many of the 300 local gun restrictionsenacted since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012.

"What's really on the line is our progress against gun violence and the future of life-saving gun safety laws," said Hannah Shearer of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/inside-teacher-shooting-lessons-to-defend-classrooms-73655877767
 
Apr 2012
82,094
6,685
Leftists should be nervous. Appointing judges that believe in the Constitution is the biggest threat to the Democrat Party and Leftist's agenda.
I read about this somewhere else and this should not be heard according to past rules of the court. This shows the court wants to set the feds and states straight about the second amendment
 
  • Like
Reactions: ripskater
Sep 2019
2,189
573
Idaho
This must have caught the left off guard. There has been little or no uproar about this and the spin machine has not been out in force deriding the court for accepting the case. This has apparently set them back on their heels and they seem completely flummoxed.
 
Nov 2014
32,118
6,291
North Carolina
I never saw the legal foundation for the right to bear arms being limited to a person's residence, anyway. It seemed a distinction our judges just pulled out of their asses (like they do with so many other things).

It seems to me, in order to be consistent, the right should apply to anywhere other than private property, or perhaps areas where a compelling case can be made to limit them. But to narrowly focus the second amendment to a person's house.... I don't see how that flies.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
3,794
6,286
Vancouver
This must have caught the left off guard. There has been little or no uproar about this and the spin machine has not been out in force deriding the court for accepting the case. This has apparently set them back on their heels and they seem completely flummoxed.
You're demeaning imaginary people for participating in an "uproar" and a "spin machine" - people that don't actually exist - while you're eagerly, enthusiastically spending your free time deliberately participating in a spin machine and causing an uproar.

There's only one Borg collective hive mind here in this thread doing it... and they're all chanting about accusing other people of doing it ... while faithfully following the identical choir book.
 
Sep 2019
2,189
573
Idaho
Personal Insult
You're demeaning imaginary people for participating in an "uproar" and a "spin machine" - people that don't actually exist - while you're eagerly, enthusiastically spending your free time deliberately participating in a spin machine and causing an uproar.

There's only one Borg collective hive mind here in this thread doing it... and they're all chanting about accusing other people of doing it ... while faithfully following the identical choir book.
Put the bong down. That made no sense to a person not under the influence.
 
Apr 2012
82,094
6,685
I never saw the legal foundation for the right to bear arms being limited to a person's residence, anyway. It seemed a distinction our judges just pulled out of their asses (like they do with so many other things).

It seems to me, in order to be consistent, the right should apply to anywhere other than private property, or perhaps areas where a compelling case can be made to limit them. But to narrowly focus the second amendment to a person's house.... I don't see how that flies.
No that is what democrats in NYC want
 

boontito

Future Staff
Jan 2008
109,771
103,188
Most Insidious
You're demeaning imaginary people for participating in an "uproar" and a "spin machine" - people that don't actually exist - while you're eagerly, enthusiastically spending your free time deliberately participating in a spin machine and causing an uproar.

There's only one Borg collective hive mind here in this thread doing it... and they're all chanting about accusing other people of doing it ... while faithfully following the identical choir book.
Well, if they can't argue against the imaginary people they're making up in their own mind, you're going to ask them to do something they're not prepared for.