Throwawayaerlei

"You can’t drop half the sentence and have the same meaning."

In a very technical sense, but if you understand what a subordinate clause means you'll know what can be dropped with changing the restriction on everyone of the main clause.

The technical sense comes from what the subordinate was politically achieving at that time, the Anti-Federalists were properly suspicious of standing armies and regulars, but the guys who actually got a reputation for the successful prosecution of the Revolutionary War starting with the indispensable man Washington knew the nation's defense could not entirely be left to militias.

You're ignoring the agreement made between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists, the latter led by none other hand Patrick Henry. The Bill of Rights was their price for accepting the Constitution, and nullifications of the former renders the whole compact null and void.

Given that a case can be made for even the Third Amendment, no quartering of soldiers in people's dwellings being abrogated by the surveillance state....

And is sure sounds like you think religion is a four letter word....

And as a result our first post-WWII new and first General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG, TL;DR: barrels are in field quick change consumables) was the awful M60.

Now replaced by a couple of Belgium Fabrique Nationale (FN) models, they're a generally very competent company. Last time I checked they had the contract to make machine gun barrels and ran three hammer forges for this and other guns.

"It's worth noting here that past cases before the Court referenced the idea that blacks could be allowed to carry fire arms if citizenship (pre-civil war) was interpreted more broadly, and that that fact was a reason to restrict it."

Worth even more noting that's a finding in Dred Scott and Clarence Thomas quoted it in his opinion today.

"This decision doesn't change what guns people are allowed to buy."

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.

Not interested in something that picks a likely convenient starting point, but the waxing and waning of murders does not support your claim of what it says.

"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.

Since the Democrats are entirely willing to violate white line Constitutional language, why limit it to the Second Amendment? Enforce with extremely severe penalties a complete media blackout on the name and sufficient biographical details of such shooters. The lack of a notoriety payoff will address quite a few.

Reverse or as so many are now saying ignore the judicial rulings that removed force as a tool in dealing with the mentally ill. [Redacted], and I think the above harsh and Un-American actions would all but eliminate the problem, and not for example, not that's it's going to be impossible, simply shift the tool of choice to the much more dangerous one of arson.

You say this, but right this very moment a bill with more gun control is being whisked through the Congress with the support of 14 Senators, who've already got it past cloture.

Of course, one interpretation is that they don't want to win back the Congress this year.

As for the Democrats, they've been anti-gun too long, too hard for anyone in " rural/hunting areas" which they've also made clear they want to outright destroy if they haven't already for them to try to make a switch for the foreseeable future.

Those of us who are a bit old remember how 7 years of election disasters from the Republicans taking back the Congress in 1994 to Al Gore in 2020 (and no matter what you think about Florida, that the election was even close should tell you something) resulted in a truce that only lasted until Obama's reelection. The party would have to fundamentally transform itself and reverse 157 years of policy (Dred Scott, which Thomas quoted in his decision, or you could start with post-Reconstruction).

Not only is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" about the least unambiguous and far reaching language in the entire Constitution and its amendments, except for those who never learned about the concept of subordinate clauses, the authors were around for others and themselves to explain their rationales and the historical context (which per an expanded version of the SCOTUSBlog article goes back to the 12th Century).

You could try reading the decision, or Heller, but the go-to foundational book has long been That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook.

I'll take the norms of the grossly overstated "Wild West" over "the norms of the last 70+ years," the choice is not even close with massive increase in criminal violence in roughly those last 70 years and most recently in the last couple of years.

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.

"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.

That's already the case in 43 states of the Union, with 74% of the population. So the Karens and Kens in 7 states with a quarter of the population will just have to get with the program.

"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."

To start getting a take on US gun culture I highly recommend this essay: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

"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.

"Although up through about the Civil War, it was relatively common for private citizens to own artillery and there were no licenses or permits required."

This was implicitly acknowledged in the Constitution's provisions for issuing letters of marque and reprisal.

A general point to make: widespread private ownership of weapons was so accepted, was in fact a key to our winning the Revolutionary War just a few years earlier, that the Second Amendment just acknowledges the fact and enforces it on everyone because the Anti-Federalists were wiser than the Federalists, they knew some hard red lines had to be drawn limiting the power of the new central government being created because any claims it would be self-limited were ludicrous. As we saw almost immediately, then through tyrants like Lincoln and FDR; Stalin wasn't the only national leader in the 1930s to deliberately starve people.

"they just felt like writing more words"

And now you're arguing in bad faith, I explicitly stated why the subordinate clause was part of the amendment and pointed you to a hard core reference for that. Not going to make any more replies to you.

Not to put a fine point on it, but everything, and I do mean everything you are saying is a lie, to the point of blood libel.

I'll just point out the most provable one: in 1980 there were 1,955 fatal gun accidents, in 2019, the most recent for which the CDC has numbers (they've been preoccupied) 486. During that period, the population increased by about half, the guns owned by it more than doubled. In part because they become a lot more useful outside of states like New York because we went from two states, Washington and Vermont that were Shall Issue or better to 43, with 74% of the population. Per million residents 8.6 to 1.5 accidental deaths.

Your claim completely flies in the face of 41 states allowing any citizen of good standing, not even a licence required in 24 with another next year, carrying concealed.

"When large numbers of black men walk around with AR-15s there will be calls for gun control."

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the American situation, except of course for some responses to the Black Panthers et. al. in the Black Power era. But what you're also lacking along with religious freedom citations is knowledge of any laws passed as a result. Reagan didn't just "call" for gun control, he signed a bill to outlaw open carry and maybe more in the statehouse or whatever.

Strange thing, but you've also missed how attitudes towards blacks and other minorities in the US have evolved in the half century since then.

"Take the guns from existing criminals first, it's already illegal."

AKA Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" policy. Pretty sure that's already illegal/unconstitutional.

"This is why some think there are ulterior motives here, and disarming the public may have other purposes, like police enforcing the whims of those in power."

"The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting."

"Gun control will quickly occur once black men arm themselves"

Are you really that ignorant about current gun ownership patterns in the US (OK, the biggest new group is black women, but...)? How many black men in Chicago for example use their legally owned and Shall Issue concealed carry licenses to defend themselves, and everyone but people like you are cool with that, US V2.0 gun culture, the NRA which is more V1.0, the local authorities etc.? It doesn't even count as more than local news, except we RKBA activists try to collate all such reports.

"Similar to how religious freedom arguments get ignored when the Satanic Church makes them."

Citations? Because I'm not getting the impression you have any knowledge of what's happening with the law and facts in the US at all. Except of course the government impunity through judge made "qualified immunity" and rigging of the game, which applies to all races and creeds. Ask us what we think about Eric Garner's fate while or in times past engaging in one of the oldest American traditions, unjust tax evasion.

"The Constitution explicitly states well regulated militia"

As a subordinate clause; what follows is independent of it. Read the book I recommended in another comment for how it came about, as a political sop to those who wanted to flatly forbid standing armies and/or regulars, which those actually experienced in the Revolutionary War starting with the indispensable man Washington were not about to accept.

"and at the time the amendment was passed the lethality of guns was much less than it is today."

You ready to surrender your assault ink jet and laser printers?? For that matter, the lethality of the huge hunks of lead shot by the common muskets and rifles of the day was pretty serious.

"It’s time to be like Lincoln"

And there is goes, we get our war or we'll have a civil war.

Well, that's implicitly true in what you're saying, trying to confiscate the 600 million or so guns owned by the US people will most certainly result in another civil war. But you should think harder about this; to quote Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds:

"Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.

"So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say."

"Yes it always has been a second class right - you can exercise your first amendment rights within the halls of congress, in the courts and all other government offices and you will never ever be able to exercise your second amendment rights in those places."

Are you really that ignorant of the historical massive prevalence of arms in America? And by that I include things like fighting knives and swords, or even canes in the Congress (OK, that was special case in many ways).

"Let's not pretend these are all equal - they might have been written by some senile, crazy old man who just wanted to maintain his enslaved properties 400 years ago."

Yes, it seems you are. You have some reading to do, I'd start with That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook. One of the Ur sources that the Supreme Court supermajority used to find this decision and enforce on New York and ultimate the 6 other modern slave states of the Union which have May or No Issue concealed carry regimes. If we want to dream, one or more of those could join the 25 states that don't or won't by the beginning of next year even require a licence to legally carry.

"There are not many people in this world who won't take a pause when a gun is pointed at them and many defensive gun uses in the US (of which the estimates range from 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000) don't even require the firearm to be discharged."

The vast majority, otherwise we'd have some truly amazing gun injury and death statistics. From memory of some of the survey results, the first by a gun control group which figured 1 million uses but didn't check for more than one use a year, it was either around 85% or a bit over 90% where the gun being used in self-defense is not discharged, the credible threat is enough. Even more without anyone getting hit, or hit badly.

"All this ruling did was strike down the “may issue” requirements for concealed carry in NY."

Presumably, if enforced by the Supreme Court over the next decade plus, it'll apply to NY's new "may issue" for simply owning a gun, as well that in NYC and Massachusetts. No "Shall Issue" law is relevant to bearing an arm if you can't even own any.

And to the other 6 slave states in the US: Hawaii and New Jersey which are No Issue at all, California as you noted, Maryland where at least in times past people who could demonstrate a real need got a permit for the duration of that, and Rhode Island which is a mess. And maybe territories like American Samoa.

Isn't Federalism fun!

Per the chart in that Wikipedia article, municipalities can ban open carry unless you have a concealed carry licence in Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The pro-RKBA community is deeply divided on the issue of open carry, and the NRA's cat lady who got the nationwide sweep of concealed carry laws started with Florida in 1986 is I think one of those opposed to it, as well as the usual GOPe types who are as anti-gun as Democrats are, but generally can't be openly so.

I'm sure he's referring to his posting getting flagged dead and how many Asians have been getting assaulted, even murdered in cities where legal concealed carry is so rare it's effectively banned, like NYC and San Francisco.

If unlike Heller and MacDonald the Supreme Court actually enforces this decision in less than a dozen year, soon more than 60,000 people will be able to own and carry concealed handguns in NYC, and more than the typical 1-2 in San Francisco. As is currently true in 43 states, 24 without a license and another on the beginning of next year.

"but it seems gun open-carriers still need a license"

Not sure what you mean in this context about "open-carriers", "open carry" is the oldest and historically least restricted form of carrying weapons, vs. concealed which prior to the Civil War the first restrictions were imposed upon under a questionable theory that would discourage dueling.

You, and if SCOTUSBlog got it right, Roberts and Kavanaugh are also wrong about needing a license, for half the states in the nation have "Constitutional Carry", no licence required.

"As an anti-gun person, this decision is not surprising, but still depressing."

You've got a remedy right there in the Constitution, repeal or even reverse the Second Amendment, or call a constitutional convention and repeal the whole thing which far too many want to do because they find it restrictive.

We were already in the process of assembling another Fat Man on Tinian. It wasn't likely to be used like the first two, but we were planning on using about five in Operation Olympic, the invasion of the first Japanese home island of Kyuushuu scheduled to begin three months later. In part because the original plan was blown by Japanese military intelligence for once getting the timing and locations correct, the former from simply logistics, and being believed so that nine divisions of troops had been moved to the island, blowing up the usual math required for an opposed amphibious assault and generally successful campaign. Those who didn't know about the Manhattan Project were planning on using poison gas.

The Soviet program to make nuclear weapons didn't get really serious until we demonstrated they could work in Japan, and their equivalent of our Trinity test took another four years.

Since absolutely nothing could go wrong with disgruntled employees making and launching rockets it has better be back wages, or something that limits the actual, physical damage they could cause. "Rocket science" has a reputation because it is not a forgiving domain.

> This is true at MIT as well. Can’t imagine the hacks of old being allowed.

Indeed, at a time the admissions process was advertising MIT's hacks of old, and they were featured in the museum, the administrators changed both the makeup and mission of the campus police. From experienced and wise older officers who were looking for a calmer post before retirement into younger aggressive sorts, and they started arresting and charging people doing non-destructive hacks, harassing parties that would previously have been tolerated and so on.

I've experienced #1 before, when there should have been absolutely no doubt about my technical aptitude and the low level of questions asked confirmed they really didn't have a good grasp on what I could do. It turned out to me a big mistake to take that job, although it was at the beginning of the dot.com crash so I didn't think I could be very picky.