>>16497092

only impacts the 6 states that have may-issue

read Kavanaugh (~p80)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22066611-high-court-strikes-down-ny-gun-law

>Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand- guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec- tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall- issue States.

effectively nullifies may-issue, but still allows shall-issue. not fully constitutional imo.

>>16497134

Alito (p71)

> 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 re- strictions that may be imposed on the possession or carry- ing of guns.

>>16497134

>>16497176

Let's say corruption overtakes the government and weaponizes the law to make felons out of the population (cannabis comes to mind: benign, ubiquitous, anti-BigPharma; maybe not taking your mandatory vax in the future?). Now, corruption has a way to deny the people the right to self-defense by creating laws and labeling the new convicts as "felons". "Felon", without inspecting the crime, is a scare-label like "terrorist"; meaningless and used strategically. The 2A is clear: shall not be infringed. It protects us against weaponized law. The US government cannot infringe upon the people's right to self defense at all; not even if they are "felons".