Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8719

Posted
Posted

What other regulations regarding constitutional rights must be “deeply rooted” in some historical precedent? It's a unique protection for guns that doesn't exist elsewhere and will be used to fuck over any progress in civil rights made in the last century. Buckle up. It only gets worse from here

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

Captainant

Captainant 27679

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Justice Alito's concurring opinion shits on Breyer's dissent so bad. Don't think I have ever seen anything like it.

Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628. Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture 2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN ALITO, J., concurring outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances.

The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose. That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 ALITO, J., concurring this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s? The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1 The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self- —————— 1

The dissent makes no effort to explain the relevance of most of the incidents and statistics cited in its introductory section (post, at 1–8) (opinion of BREYER, J.). Instead, it points to studies (summarized later in its opinion) regarding the effects of “shall issue” licensing regimes on rates of homicide and other violent crimes. I note only that the dissent’s presentation of such studies is one-sided. See RAND Corporation, Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime (Apr. 22, 2022), https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealedcarry/violent-crime-html; see also Brief for William English et al. as Amici Curiae 3 (“The overwhelming weight of statistical analysis on the effects of [right-to-carry] laws on violent crime concludes that RTC laws do not result in any statistically significant increase in violent crime rates”); Brief for Arizona et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[P]opulation-level data on licensed carry is extensive, and the weight of the evidence confirms that objective, non-discriminatory licensed-carry laws have two results: (1) statistically significant reductions in some types of violent crime, or (2) no statistically significant effect on overall violent crime”); Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 12 (“[O]ver the period 1991–2019 the inventory of firearms more than doubled; the number of concealed carry permits increased by at least sevenfold,” but “murder rates fell by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 per 100,000 in 2019” and “[v]iolent crimes plummeted by over half ”). 4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN ALITO, J., concurring defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3.

And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

Lmao which publication are you quoting here? At least give credit when you're copy/pasting 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted

This one should have been 9-0. But the lib justices can always be counted on to rule for their "side" in lockstep.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices-column/2028450001/

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891185410/in-supreme-court-term-liberals-stuck-together-while-conservatives-appeared-fract

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Laxtonto

Laxtonto 12090

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lmao which publication are you quoting here? At least give credit when you're copy/pasting 

That is literally from Alito's Dissent concurrence published in the SC opinion...

That isn't a publication, that is a part now of the record of the court.

Edited by Laxtonto
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27679

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Are you serious?

 

2 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

That is literally from Alito's Dissent published in the SC opinion...

That isn't a publication, that is a part now of the record of the court.

Heh mea culpa, I'm just so used to our favorite homophobic racist barrister deacon nakely posting a lobo-longpost and taking credit for it only to sheepishly later provide the link that I jumped to conclusions. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2446

Posted
Posted (edited)

Until the second amendment is repealed or clarified we are fucked.  The right’s eye rolling rationale to obfuscate what is really just, at its core, a beavis and butthead “guns are cool, huh huh huh” rationale to maintain their right to have weapons that can slaughter humans, funded by the NRA, Smith & Wesson, etc., will go down as one of the great evils of our country.  Get the fuck out of here with the tyranny arguments.  The 2nd amendment was never about the individual right to possess a firearm.  Read the amendment “the people”.  But the right has it all twisted because it’s fun to shoot an AR…..  wel that and $$$$.

tl;dr we are fucked. 

Edited by A-Tex Devil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8067

Posted
Posted
On 6/21/2022 at 12:25 PM, tx 3 putt said:

He (Jesus) went cheap on the booze and food the night before  !!!!

It was Passover, the menu was fixed, unleavened bread and bitter herbs

On 6/21/2022 at 12:34 PM, tx 3 putt said:


hello church of satan !!!!

It doesn't need to be church of satan, just get some Islamic or Hindu schools set up for public funding.  Wiccan would also be fun, little Hogwarts academies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6169

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am certain that living in a city of almost 9 million people that there will not be an increase in gun related crimes because of this ruling. 
 

Watching those six justices choose weapons over people, especially with what continues to transpire with gun violence and mass murders, is just almost unbelievable. How others can care more about weapons than human beings is a sad indictment on our society.

Edited by UpperWestside
  • Fuck You 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21817

Posted
Posted

Dicta from 1857, lol. Come on Clarence, at least try a little harder here.

I don't have the time to read the entire Miranda ruling. Is it just that cops can't be sued for damages? I'm not sure that's too big a problem in the grand scheme since my understanding has always been that a Miranda violation is an evidentiary rule that can cause evidence to be suppressed for failing to cite the rights. Cop immunity on broader issues is a much bigger problem in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deac_tracy

deac_tracy 516

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Justice Alito's concurring opinion shits on Breyer's dissent so bad. Don't think I have ever seen anything like it.

 Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

 

nvm

Edited by deac_tracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21817

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Well and also, isn't Alito basically saying, "Why do we have laws at all, after all, if someone wants to do something, having a law against it isn't going to make them stop."  I wouldn't have taken him for an anarchist.

Yes, it's exactly that, and is absolutely shocking to see a United States Supreme Court Justice say those words in a published opinion. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45691

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

How others can care more about weapons than human beings is a sad indictment on our society.

They are afraid of everything and care more about themselves than any other humans.  It's selfish by definition.  It's how small minded people feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27679

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yes, it's exactly that, and is absolutely shocking to see a United States Supreme Court Justice say those words in a published opinion. 

Which is why I thought it was a sack special from some fringe fedsoc rag. It's surprising to see that sort of shit in a published opinion and not just from an angry and hateful church elder on a football message board

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Which is why I thought it was a sack special from some fringe fedsoc rag. It's surprising to see that sort of shit in a published opinion and not just from an angry and hateful church elder on a football message board

We can’t all have the reasoned logic and compassion of Surly cloak room leftists.  We can only hope to emulate you guys.  You all seem very sane, rational and happy with your lives.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
aggie08

aggie08 21504

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We can’t all have the reasoned logic and compassion of Surly cloak room leftists.  We can only hope to emulate you guys.  You all seem very sane, rational and happy with your lives.  

Because nothing screams happiness like owning the libs from a hunting blind by shit posting all the hackneyed neo-con website fodder that you can find in the stupidest corners of the internet.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 5
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hefeweizen

Hefeweizen 5324

Posted
Posted

Did anyone have 25% of the population having confidence in the Supreme Court on their bingo card?  Because that is the number now.

 

The country is circling the drain.  I don’t know when civil war is coming or what will start it but those levels of mistrust in all institutions is exceptionally corrosive.  I don’t see a path back to trust, either.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8018

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

This one should have been 9-0. But the lib justices can always be counted on to rule for their "side" in lockstep.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/10/liberal-supreme-court-justices-vote-in-lockstep-not-the-conservative-justices-column/2028450001/

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891185410/in-supreme-court-term-liberals-stuck-together-while-conservatives-appeared-fract

Did they throw out an established precedent in doing so? Wouldn’t that make them just like the lying scum you willingly spread your chump ass for? No? 
Putz.

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
More
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23474

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Irony, thy name is Anastasis.

None of the lawyers here are actually discussing and dissecting the decision. A tweet here and tweet there.  Some of the expected hyperbolic nonsense. Sack only one that posted some of the relevant text from the decision in more than a few frames. I am sorry that your profession shows out so poorly on this board. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Did they throw out an established precedent in doing so? Wouldn’t that make them just like the lying scum you willingly spread your chump ass for? No? 
Putz.

 

You talking about Plessy?   Or some other bad precedent that was overruled?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...