Judicial
Supreme Court rules New York law restricting public-carry violates Second Amendment
On Thursday, The Supreme Court struck down a New York gun law put in place over 100 years ago that places restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside of their residence.
The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to remove the law, which they said violated citizen’s right to bear arms.
“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
Thomas said in his ruling that, moving forward, the government “may not simply posit that the regulation promotes and important interest.”
“Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command,” Thomas said.
“We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand- gun for self-defense outside the home.”
The ruling is one of many from the Supreme Court, who has continued to expand gun-rights protections.
Steve Vladeck, CNN’s Supreme Court analyst, said of the ruling: “The majority’s expansion of what the Second Amendment protects will have monumental ramifications far beyond carrying firearms in public – on everything from age restrictions to assault weapons bans to limits on high-capacity magazines.”
He added, “We’re in for a whole new slew of litigation challenging any and every gun-control measure in light of the analysis in today’s ruling.”
President Joe Biden also commented on the ruling, saying that he was “deeply disappointed” with the ruling.
“This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” Biden said. “In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society – not less – to protect our fellow Americans.”
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization3 days agoThe Minnesota Insurrection
-
Civilization3 days agoSupreme Court Orders CA Dems To Justify Prop 50 Maps
-
Education2 days agoFree Speech Isn’t Free and It Cost Charlie Kirk Everything
-
Civilization2 days agoThe Campaign Against ICE Is All About Open Borders
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: U.S.-Funded International Groups Don’t Have to Report Fraud
-
Executive4 days agoObama’s Fingerprints All Over Investigations of Trump And Clinton
-
Executive3 days agoWaste of the Day: How the Grinch Stole $30,000
-
Executive22 hours agoWaste of the Day: Throwback Thursday – Monkeys Throw Poop, And $600K


The simple fact is that ALL laws and regulations restricting owning, levy special taxes, or interfere with Amendment 2 are unconstitutional. Only a person subjected to Amendment 13 can be prohibited from owning and carrying Arms. Remember, Amendment 2 could have been written as:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
We still need to restore Amendment 2 to what is ACTUALLY states.