Anonymous ID: 7ceb9d June 24, 2022, 5:43 p.m. No.16504662   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4687 >>4748

These creatures are sick, if DOJ doesn’t protect the justices there will be hell to pay

Anonymous ID: 7ceb9d June 24, 2022, 5:48 p.m. No.16504689   🗄️.is 🔗kun

What would have been 100x worse if the court caved, no one would ever trust our government any longer. They are the one hold out saying, we will not be intimidated! Roberts damaged the court immeasurably when he voted in favor of ACA.Today was their redemption

Anonymous ID: 7ceb9d June 24, 2022, 5:52 p.m. No.16504714   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4766

Mollie has a plan. Go Mollie go! Get a team and do it

Anonymous ID: 7ceb9d June 24, 2022, 6:06 p.m. No.16504819   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5072 >>5284

==6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Protection Of Self-Defense

Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S.==

Excellent article but too long to post


Supreme Court held in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that “may issue” gun licensing that allows state officials to deny law-abiding citizens a right to possess a gun for self-defense violate the Second Amendment.


The holding came in the context of a challenge to a New York statute that prohibited individuals from carrying concealed handguns unless they “demonstrate[d] a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”


Beyond that holding, the Supreme Court opinion authorized by Justice Clarence Thomas proves significant for six reasons. Here are the key takeaways.


  1. May-Issue Gun Licensing Regimes Violate the Second Amendment


In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, two New Yorkers, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, along with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., sued the superintendent of New York State Police. They challenged the state’s statute that requires a person wishing to carry a firearm outside his home or business for self-defense to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon. Under the statute, to obtain such a license, the applicant must prove “proper cause exists” for the government to issue the license.


As the Supreme Court summarized, New York’s statute does not define “proper cause,” but state courts have held “that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can ‘demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.’” Merely “living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice.” Rather, New York courts generally require evidence “of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.”


This licensing scheme, as the Supreme Court explained, is called a “may issue” licensing law, because it provides government officials “discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license.”


Six jurisdictions have adopted “may issue” schemes in addition to New York: California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. In contrast, as the Supreme Court explained, “the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are ‘shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.”


In yesterday’s decision, the Supreme Court held that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Second Amendment, applicable to the state by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and the incorporation doctrine. (For more on the incorporation doctrine, read here.)…