U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law
reuters.com
reuters.com
"If public safety has broken down (why else go about armed?), fair's fair."
You need to be more explicit in what you're insinuating in your last couple of words there.
But you're also making a massive inversion mistake. going about armed is one way to avoid having public safety break down, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."
Public safety has demonstrably has collapsed in both NYC and San Francisco, two cities I cite because we know their very small numbers of concealed carry permits (60,000 ownership ones, not all allowing concealed carry, and 1-3 any given year). And Hacker News features more than a few items about the latter.
The us is what it is and the introduction of more weapons into society won’t make it better.
"the introduction of more weapons into society won’t make it better."
And you know this how? We are after all taking about a state where there's been severe suppression of urban civilian handgun ownership, let along carrying, for over a century.
But I have about $10K-$20K ready to spend when it opens up.
As I understand New York state law prior to the most recent, very recent post-Uvalde, it does and very much so. Mere ownership of handguns was permit based, with permits often denied and revoked after the fact. When that new law goes into effect all types of guns will be under the same sorts of May Issue ownership restrictions like Massachusetts. It may also restrict the type of handguns you can get, and in any case magazine capacities are limited to 10 rounds, as if you can determine ahead of time how many assailants you may face, how well you'll be able to shoot them, and how many won't be in the half who aren't stopped by getting hit once.
Then we get to NYC, obviously a focus of the state's crime issues: it's so restrictive that for the 8.8 million residents about 60,000 each are allowed to get permits to own handguns and long guns. And you aren't allowed to buy a handgun in another state. (Not without having to take custody of it at a FFL in your state.)
At best you might be able to travel to a gun friendly state and rent one at a range, but what range would want to take the change of being a test case? OK, if you've got friends out of state who also happen to own a gun that fit you, that's still generally legal for supervised target shooting.
Republicans today would be recognized as doughfaces from 1856. Radical republicans from the civil war would not have much overlap with their namesakes today.
I don't think it is relevant if, when or on what issues parties flipped. The Democratic Party used to support gun control take prevent blacks from having guns. The current Democratic Party supports gun control. Their reasons may or may not have changed, but it is still used as an attack.
EDIT: Well, both are flagged now. I'm guessing "politics" is the reason.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
This is pure hubris and stupidity. This country wouldn't be here without many such battles, which created the venue for curiosity. I'm envious of the women of Iceland waged political and ideological battle, in particular the 1975 strike. This quickly gave quite a lot of the country many things to be curious about, which they weren't curious enough about before.
I do not see HN as above politics, but deeply ignorant and insular. It has a long history of anti-gay, misogyny, and white nationalism for its lack of diversity, and lack of discussion of such things under the auspices of "politics". And I also see quite a lot of cognitive dissonance in the HN community about these topics, and it is that necessary discomfort this rule serves to sooth. I consider the rule a public menace.
What happened to states rights?
I also don't see how not allowing conceal carry prevents you from bearing arms when "the government is coming to get you".
And the hierarchal structure of the US Constitution and legal system (based on Common Law rather than Civil Law).
Constitutional Amendments are far above any other federal law - for example, state laws barring free speech are struck down because the 1A is most fundamental. But regulating milk is not.
Common Law generally inverts the legislative/legal process compared to a Civic Law system. The US, all British Commonwealth Nations and US territories and commonwealths are all Common Law, and that's pretty much the only places. The rest of the world is Civil Law based on French and Roman legal traditions which operate very differently and are based on different fundamental assumptions.
It's sometimes said that in Common Law, ALL things are legal except those specifically outlined by law as forbidden, while in Civil Law, ALL things are forbidden except those specifically outlined by law as allowed. That's about how big the difference is though the impact on legislative process and judicial process are nontrivial as well.
Note the why is very important here. My hypothesis is that guns from Gun friendly places being funneled into Gun Control places. A solution would be banning all guns to decrease the amount of gun deaths. This, however, is not a practical solution politically for various reasons.
It's not a practical solution, full stop. See how mass quantities of drugs are smuggled around the world; guns and the small supplies of ammo criminals use (they aren't big on practicing) are much more compact, durable etc.
Not a good analogy. People want guns because other people have guns. But people do not want drugs because other people have drugs
Some people want to buy drugs to do drugs with other people and to fit in. If their friends or whoever didn't do drugs they may not buy drugs themself.
Some people want to own guns to go hunting by themself and would still want to do it even if nobody else owned guns.
All of it, but it's dishonest to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Who's right shall not be infringed? The militia's? No. The people's. The militia is made up of the people. The militia has historically been comprised of people bringing their own arms to fight. How do you bring your own arms, when they're banned from personal ownership?
James Madison's original draft of the 2A mentioned that even those that wanted to bear arms privately for their own reasons should not be required to participate in a militia in order to do so.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
It was removed as "too verbose", but the intention still remains.
"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. "
"Because A, B". It is emphatically not, "B if A" or "B for the purposes of A".
"You just had the most horrific school shooting and now you are forcing states that want to ban guns in certain ways from doing it."
How does your system of government work at the most fundamental level? Here we have constitutional government, where the highest law in the land is a written and not easily amended document. Oh, and it's the birthday of the primary author of the opinion, who's been more and more strident about the Supreme Court allowing the courts below it to nullify their previous decisions a dozen plus years ago.
"What happened to states rights?"
Like the right to keep slaves? See the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. (We can tell you're not an American or are a young one because you don't know the #1 connotation of "states rights" from the civil rights era.)
"I also don't see how not allowing conceal carry prevents you from bearing arms when 'the government is coming to get you'."
It makes all sorts of gambits more expensive. Look for videos of subjects of the PRC being vanned and never heard from again. The shades of 100 million killed by their own governments in 20th Century tell us this is by far the most important reason for a Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), but it's hardly comprehensive, there's such a thing as lethal force used by criminals to defend against.
Good to know.