site banner
Unable to load image

Supreme Court gun case just dropped!


Tl;dr this doesn't affect shall issue states. They just ruled that "may issue" was unconstitutional. States can still require licensing

@JoeBiden @Swagman @idio3

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ). An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257.

Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the Second Circuit’s prior de- cision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, which had sustained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the require- ment was “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.” Id., at 96.


Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-de- fense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.

(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordi- nary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.

If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scru- tiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balanc- ing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Sec- ond Amendment “is the very product of an interest balanc- ing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American peo- ple—that demands our unqualified deference.

Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Id., at 584 (quoting Mus- carello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Gins- burg, J., dissenting); internal quotation marks omitted).

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner ta- ble. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confron- tation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Throughout modern Anglo-American history, the right to keep and bear arms in public has tra- ditionally been subject to well-defined restrictions govern- ing the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner of carry, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms. But apart from a handful of late- 19th-century jurisdictions, the historical record compiled by respondents does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense. Nor is there any such historical tradition lim- iting public carry only to those law-abiding citizens who demonstrate a special need for self-defense.9 We conclude that respondents have failed to meet their burden to iden- tify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper- cause requirement. Under Heller’s text-and-history stand- ard, the proper-cause requirement is therefore unconstitu- tional.

To summarize: The historical evidence from antebellum America does demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable regulation. Under the common law, individuals could not carry deadly weapons in a man- ner likely to terrorize others. Similarly, although surety statutes did not directly restrict public carry, they did pro- vide financial incentives for responsible arms carrying. Fi- nally, States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly.

After the Civil War, of course, the exercise of this funda- mental right by freed slaves was systematically thwarted. This Court has already recounted some of the Southern abuses violating blacks’ right to keep and bear arms.

At the end of this long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry, we conclude that respondents have not met their burden to identify an American tradition jus- tifying the State’s proper-cause requirement. The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasona- ble, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581. Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials. Apart from a few late-19th- century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor, subject to a few late-in-time outliers, have American governments required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry arms in public. Klenosky, 75 App. Div., at 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self- defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guaran- tees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic-ers some special need. That is not how the First Amend- ment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self- defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Four- teenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro- ceedings consistent with this opinion.

Kavanaugh concurring:

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not af- fect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States


Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.


New York needs to say that they do not recognize the Supreme Court's authority in this matter, and they will continue to enforce the law.



“Seceding is good when we do it”

Always the case

Literally what NY has been doing, except more subtly.


What’s this?

2030 during the mayofoid genocide:marseywholesome:

The national guard forcing white children to go to school at bayonet point to integrate schools

Huh, I always thought that they only forced the schools to let black children, didn’t know they also did the opposite.

For some reason they don't like to point out that anti-racism/desegregation means putting white children in front of bayonets.

They most certainly will

Redditors have all that talk about the evils of sedition and treason then they go and say things like this. Almost makes you think their appeals to ethos rang hollow and that they never had any respect for the system they tried to use to beat their enemies into submission




At least it will be easier for LGBTQ people to carry to defend ourselves against homophobes and transphobes.



Tell me I'm a pretty girl or I swear to goddess, I'll do it!

>omg that person didn't use my pronouns and called me a 🚂🚃🚃!

shoots person in the head


Valid self-defense against literal violence.

Trains try not to make an unrelated issue about themselves challenge (impossible)

![]( lol

It’s a reminder of the chud I’ve become and it helps me dechud

What is this

Good. Kill your bullies and eat their entrails

I’d actually start respecting 🚂 if they did this

no you wouldnt

>mfw Bardfinn won't be one of them due to his domestic violence charges


🚨Bard bot alert!🚨

Reset the counter. Current counter was: 0 days, 0 hours, 24 minutes

Record is 0 days, 21 hours

🚨Bard bot (near miss) alert!🚨

I'll let it slide this time, but I'm watching you...


🚨Bard bot alert!🚨

Reset the counter. Current counter was: 0 days, 1 hours, 54 minutes

Record is 0 days, 21 hours

Lol wtf triggers this? How was that a near miss?



You’d think die hard progressives would have heard of Pink Pistols lmao

The /r/law thread is juicy.

concealed carry permit holders commit fewer firearm homicides than the police.

the violence policy center cited 801 homicides by a concealed carry holder in 2019. that year the police killed 1,004 people. again, that's not from some conservative thinktank that's from the violence policy center, which is like using the right to life foundation to pull stats on abortion.

“Fewer homicides than the single largest group responsible for gun homicides” is a hell of a metric.

I wonder if there's a different group that commits far more homicides than the police.


Never relax.

Around the Zack



I will never carry a gun. If someone wants me to die well they can go ahead and kill me because I’m definitely not going to risk killing anyone myself. I just hope they do it quick with no torture.

Redditers deserve whatever they get.



>be schizocel

>this and unironically

Fate is fate, Inshallah


Causal fate is a totalizing concept, you can't actually use it to justify anything. The acceptance of fate is just another link in the causal chain. It does not absolve you of responsibility or what we know as agency.



I'm a spineless wimp who cares more about the safety of my potential murderer than myself

At that point you just sound suicidal, not brave.

Welcome to the Wild West



Alexa, play "Big Iron" by Marty Robbins

Reported by:

I'm not reading all that shit, lol


Каждая нация считает себя лучше других. Это порождает национализм и войны. Люди должны понять, что выше белорусов не прыгнешь.

Its like 3 paragraphs

Tl;dr illegal to require someone to show special need for self defense beyond that of the rest of their community, in order to carry a pistol

It is much longer (150 pages) I just summarized

The biggest thing to note with this ruling is it only affects May Issue jurisdictions

It doesn't strike down the requirement to get a license to carry a handgun - so for states with shall issue laws those requirements remain in force


I know but the summary has all the important parts

He edited it. Initially it was just a link to the gigantic, boring legal dogshit.

Каждая нация считает себя лучше других. Это порождает национализм и войны. Люди должны понять, что выше белорусов не прыгнешь.


Excuse me sir but those are the words of brilliant legal mind and lynching victim Clarence Thomas

I enjoyed him far more when he was just a lone r-slur writing ridiculous dissents on every subject. Him actually having a majority is kinda scary, tbh.

Каждая нация считает себя лучше других. Это порождает национализм и войны. Люди должны понять, что выше белорусов не прыгнешь.

He had majority opinions in the past (like Kelly v Marsh upholding the death penalty) but I still agree

Isn’t that a commie’s speciality though? :marseyconfused:

Its like 3 paragraphs

"It's not a gigantic amount of words, it's merely an enormous amount of words."


tl;dr: shall not

Tl;dr Republicans sneed for 30 pages about treating the second amendment as a second class right, then rule that the second class amendment is a second class right. They explicitly allowed shall issue states to maintain their licensing schemes

Shouldn't need a license to carry a gun any more than you should need a license to vote or to protest

Tl;dr This ruling is bs; they didn't go far enough


Generally agree but it's a good step in the right direction.



Shall issue is fine tbh. Those of you who want completely unregulated concealed carry make the rest of us look r-slurred by proxy, so fuck off please.

unpermitted isn't unregulated

It also generates seethe from both fudds like you and from the gungrabbers so it is the true radical centrist position


Much like voting, gun rights should only exist for those who are able to demonstrate they aren't r-slurred. Have you met the average American? The only way I can see you being for unregulated concealed carry is if you are one.

make unto thee any graven image

Don’t worry I’ll sum it up for you.

The law is to protect against radicals like you from coming in and spreading radical left wing agendas. Now we can just shoot commies legally is what it says striking down a New York law that said otherwise.

cute twink

We should make freez peach licenses to use twitter and give them to everyone who doesn’t work as a journo.

This morning, Cum went to the park. I went with Coom. And Cum brought Coomer frisbee. At least I think it was Coomers. By the end of the day, Cum started throwing the frisbee to Cumself.

This ruling is shit

They didn't legalize constitutional carry nationwide, they just struck down the proper cause requirement in May Issue states. It doesn't affect shall issue states


Imagine a court behaving like a court and deciding the matters of the case instead of overreaching to right all the wrongs in the world.

They spent 40 pages sneeding about courts treating the second amendment as a second class right and then proceeded to treat the second amendment as a second class right


They decided the case, stop malding about it.

I have no interest in owning a gun so none of this affects me

But I will sneed anyways in the spirit of radical centrism


I shouldn't tell someone to not sneed, it's dramaphobic. Carry on then.

what we really need is MORE activism from the bench, to give people their rights!

Oh that was the actual ruling? I didn’t read it, I assumed it was the NY license case.

This morning, Cum went to the park. I went with Coom. And Cum brought Coomer frisbee. At least I think it was Coomers. By the end of the day, Cum started throwing the frisbee to Cumself.

Yeah it's the NY license case

NY made people show "proper cause" to get a license

Requiring licenses is still constitutional, they just struck down the proper cause requirement



This morning, Cum went to the park. I went with Coom. And Cum brought Coomer frisbee. At least I think it was Coomers. By the end of the day, Cum started throwing the frisbee to Cumself.

Pretty wild that this is causing so much seethe when it's just saying you can't deny black people licenses for no stated reason


U. S. A.

U. S. A.


Chudsisters....we can't stop winning this year

Oh no! Yt people can carry guns now. They might attack , completely unprovoked I might add, BIPOC who hustle and bustle.

How can Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas support this? That Uncle Tom is so racist

Supreme Justiceoids should cite the Thirteenth Amendment on all gun cases bypassing the Second arguing that the inability to enjoy guns and gun accessories makes you a slave which is true no matter what yurocels tell you.

This is the first good argument for the 13th I've ever seen

I like the way you think



Looking forward to the seethe this will generate :marseywholesome: