MEGA THREAD -Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights to All 50 States

Just doesn't make sense to me, I have a right in mass, so long as I give the state $100 and accept the fact my rights may not be equal to the next door neighbors? bleh.

Perhaps we should have a massive mail back of LTCs with a big red circle/slash that says "VOID BY SCOTUS"......I want a refund !!!!!
 
Just as an aside ... if any elements of the Mass LTC system were found to bu unconstitutional, would that affect people who had been previously convicted on LTC violations?
 
Just as an aside ... if any elements of the Mass LTC system were found to bu unconstitutional, would that affect people who had been previously convicted on LTC violations?

If I fell into that catagory, I'd petition for reparations!!!
 
I'd like to see some lawsuits challenging the licensing of a right. It wouldn't go over well if you needed to pay $100 to get a license to open your mouth. Even if it was "shall issue".
 
Just as an aside ... if any elements of the Mass LTC system were found to bu unconstitutional, would that affect people who had been previously convicted on LTC violations?

It would certainly make a good case. It would be difficult to say "we're grandfathering convictions from back when we didn't honor the Constitution".
 
I wouldn't count on anything drastic right away. Self defense is only part of the picture... The culture of crime that has been created by the nanny/police state will take some time to correct.

I realize that, but if close attention were paid to it, I'm positive that a vigorous and steady decline would be observed and obvious to even the most blind and myopic of individuals.
 
Time to put a date/time stamp mark the Chicago violent crime statistics.......then watch them fall in the coming months as people start arming themselves and start defending themselves against the thugs that run their streets.

I wouldn't count on that. Much of the crime in cities like Chicago is criminal against criminal. Also, I think the belief that "more guns = less crime" is far too simplistic a view and as difficult to prove as "more guns = more crime". Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
 
I wouldn't count on that. Much of the crime in cities like Chicago is criminal against criminal. Also, I think the belief that "more guns = less crime" is far too simplistic a view and as difficult to prove as "more guns = more crime". Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

I agree. And furthermore, I don't think it matters if crime goes up or down. It is irrelevant, because it is a right we are talking about.
 
It would certainly make a good case. It would be difficult to say "we're grandfathering convictions from back when we didn't honor the Constitution".

That hasn't silenced or stopped the slavery reparations crowd. The only thing holding their case up and basically invalidating it is that there are no more previous slave owners alive to be held accountable.........there are politicians, judges, sherrifs, police chiefs and legislators still alive who have knowingly and willingly violated peoples rights in the past and could be held accountable in 2nd ammendment violations.
 
Hope I'm not too late to the [party]

[cheers]
astronomically-epic-win.jpg
 
THANK GOD this case was decided before The King of Queens takes a seat on the Supreme Court bench. . . assuming her nomination survives that whole "naked shower picture" scandal


KaganinShower.jpg
 
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said his politically powerful group "will continue to work at every level to insure that defiant city councils and cynical politicians do not transform this constitutional victory into a practical defeat through Byzantine regulations and restrictions."

I'm sure he meant Chicago, but if there was ever any question about the NRA's intent on helping out its MA members, it is now put up or shut up time.
 
That hasn't silenced or stopped the slavery reparations crowd. The only thing holding their case up and basically invalidating it is that there are no more previous slave owners alive to be held accountable.........there are politicians, judges, sherrifs, police chiefs and legislators still alive who have knowingly and willingly violated peoples rights in the past and could be held accountable in 2nd ammendment violations.

I agree, I hope you took my opinion as saying convictions should be struck down. Or am I reading it right? [laugh]
 
I wouldn't count on that. Much of the crime in cities like Chicago is criminal against criminal. Also, I think the belief that "more guns = less crime" is far too simplistic a view and as difficult to prove as "more guns = more crime". Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

There's nothing too simplistic about it at all.....its already been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. More guns does equal less crime, and every single place where guns are the most prevalent the crime is the lowest. Conversely, the places where there are the least numbers of guns held by the general public, the crime rates are the highest. Its been that way ALL my life and I've watched the statistics change as carry laws became more lax and people started arming themselves.

The facts are already out there for anyone who cares to look at them.
 
I'm gonna go blast 500 rounds downrange to celebrate. I think ol' Tom Jefferson would be at least grinning a little bit right now.
 
I agree, I hope you took my opinion as saying convictions should be struck down. Or am I reading it right? [laugh]

Yes, I took it as you state, just pointing out the differences in the two cases where reparations cannot be foisted upon people who had nothing to do with the owning or mistreatment of slaves.

Current and previous members of the groups I listed however are still here and living, and they knowingly and willingly violated the law of the land, with malice and should be held accountable for their actions.
 
The Boston Globe-Democrat wasted zero time going to John Rosenthal for a quote:

Activist: Supreme Court ruling to have little effect on Mass. gun laws


From the article:

A US Supreme Court ruling today extending the reach of the constitutional right to bear arms will likely have little effect on gun control laws in Massachusetts, according to the founder of a gun violence prevention group.

John E. Rosenthal, chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, said the 5-4 ruling in a case involving handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., would probably have "little or no impact" in Massachusetts because there are no comparable bans here.

Massachusetts has for years had bans on military-style assault weapons and on cheap, crudely made handguns known as "Saturday Night Specials," Rosenthal said, but those prohibitions are likely to be considered "reasonable restrictions."

"We don't have an outright ban on handguns," said Rosenthal, a gun owner. "We only have an outright ban on 19 specifically defined military-style assault weapons...and Saturday night specials," he said.

Do the Globe reporters have him on speed dial or something? Every time one of their stories so much as mentions the word "guns," he's quoted.
 
Just a thought, could all LTC B or LTC A "restricted" licensees now get together in a huge lawsuit claiming their right to self defense under the 2nd has been violated?
 
As usual, I'd advocate going slow to see how this develops.

Despite what people think, one can show historically that most of the time the Court is aware of and influenced by public sentiment. The national mood on gun control has shifted radically -- in our favor -- over the last 20 years. I'm not confident that either of these cases would have come out the same way were the public sentiment the same today as it was then, and I fear the implications of someone advocating (on the strength of Heller and McDonald) something that the public abhors, losing, and in the process getting us some hard to live with language.

'Twer it up to me (which it almost never is), my first baby step in Massachusetts would be with respect to the banning of post-ban date M4 magazines. I have a large quantity of M4 magazines. These are identical in function and capacity to, for instance, P-Mags (which are banned), saving only two attributes of no public significance whatsoever: A) they are old (actually most were still in original wrap), and B) they cost me four times what people in other states have to pay (with all due respect to ColtFan, whose perserverence in finding caches of pre-ban mags has benefitted us all).
 
Municipal respondent's remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller's central holding. In effect, they ask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to a different body of rules for incorporation that the other Bill of Rights guarantees.

They get it!!!!!!!!!!!! Justice is finally served.

[cheers][party][party][cheers]
 
Just a thought, could all LTC B or LTC A "restricted" licensees now get together in a huge lawsuit claiming their right to self defense under the 2nd has been violated?

I'd hold off on that one for a while. For the moment, the Court has held that Heller identifies only a right to possess a handgun in the home, something permitted under all LTC restrictions. In order for the Second Amendment to be offended by carrying restrictions, a court is going to have to rule that the Second Amendment also includes a right to carry a firearm in some, to be defined, circumstances.
 
I'd hold off on that one for a while. For the moment, the Court has held that Heller identifies only a right to possess a handgun in the home, something permitted under all LTC restrictions. In order for the Second Amendment to be offended by carrying restrictions, a court is going to have to rule that the Second Amendment also includes a right to carry a firearm in some, to be defined, circumstances.

This seems to be right on point. It appears to me like there's a good argument that LTC-Bs must be shall-issue now.
 
Back
Top Bottom