Supreme Court rules in favor of firearms owners in major 2nd Amendment case;

[ducks]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-shoots-down-ny-rule-set-high-bar-concealed-handgun-licenses

[ducks]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-guns-second-amendment-new-york-bruen/index.html

[TSA]

:bobo

[boutons_deux]

fucking fatally sick country

This has nothing to do with even the perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,

but only guns/ammo division of the oligarchy paying/packing the court with pro-oligarchy political hacks.

It's all about money, not about inhumane run rights or self-defense.

[SpursforSix]

fucking fatally sick country

This has nothing to do with even the perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,

but only guns/ammo division of the oligarchy paying/packing the court with pro-oligarchy political hacks.

It's all about money, not about inhumane run rights or self-defense.

LMAO. Everything is always about money. From the rightest of the right to the leftist of the left.

[spurraider21]

can we please stop getting murdered by guns?

no pls

[ducks]

fucking fatally sick country

This has nothing to do with even the perverted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,

but only guns/ammo division of the oligarchy paying/packing the court with pro-oligarchy political hacks.

It's all about money, not about inhumane run rights or self-defense. you are welcome to go to Canada

[ducks]

can we please stop getting murdered by guns?

no pls

More die by doctors then guns

[TSA]

you are welcome to go to Canada

https://i.imgur.com/GrYJP4j.gif

[ducks]

we have a President that is deeply disappointed that the Constitution gives American citizens rights. That same Constitution he took an oath to uphold. We have a serious problem, people

[spurraider21]

More die by doctors then guns
crazy how so many people die in hospitals

[Ef-man]

crazy how so many people die in hospitals

Crazy how many people cannot spell border

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV8rvDUWQAI7PdW?format=jpg&name=900x900

[ducks]

Crazy how many people cannot spell border

Crazy how many non USA residents usa is teaching in their classrooms

[ducks]

According to a study published in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), up to 98,000 people die annually due to medical errors.
https://staminacomfort.com/do-doctors-accidentally-kill-people

[ducks]

Death by medicine is a huge problem. Doctors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.


https://www.cancerwisdom.net/death-by-medicine/

[ducks]

Firearm deaths include all deaths involving guns, such as homicide, suicide, and accidents. More people in the US die from suicide involving a firearm than homicides or accidents.

There were a total of 45,222 firearm deaths in the US in 2020, an increase of 14% or 5,155 firearm deaths from 2019.
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/crime-and-justice/firearms/firearm-deaths/

Seems we should go after the medicine field ..

[spurraider21]

ducks' idea to save lives is to ban hospitals

[leemajors]

Firearm deaths include all deaths involving guns, such as homicide, suicide, and accidents. More people in the US die from suicide involving a firearm than homicides or accidents.

There were a total of 45,222 firearm deaths in the US in 2020, an increase of 14% or 5,155 firearm deaths from 2019.
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/crime-and-justice/firearms/firearm-deaths/

Seems we should go after the medicine field ..

I was wondering when Bret Weinstein would find his way into your little mind.

[Spurminator]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV8rvDUWQAI7PdW?format=jpg&name=900x900

I never knew Chicago was in Louisiana.

[ducks]

ducks' idea to save lives is to ban hospitals

Hospitals do not kill people
People kill people

[benefactor]

I always wonder if ducks can reach new, unexplored places of stupid. He discovers them every time

[SpursforSix]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV8rvDUWQAI7PdW?format=jpg&name=900x900

What about California? They have the toughest gun laws in the country. Yet there are 12 states that have less gun deaths per person.

[clambake]

we have a President that is deeply disappointed that the Constitution gives American citizens rights. That same Constitution he took an oath to uphold. We have a serious problem, people

Your guy tried to destroy it, dill weed

[ChumpDumper]

What about California? They have the toughest gun laws in the country. Yet there are 12 states that have less gun deaths per person.
What about it?

It's still quite good.

[spurraider21]

What about California? They have the toughest gun laws in the country. Yet there are 12 states that have less gun deaths per person.
so its what, in the top quartile despite also having some of the most populated metro areas in the country? nice :tu

results arent usually perfectly linear in any situation, though trend lines are still useful tools

[SpursforSix]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV8rvDUWQAI7PdW?format=jpg&name=900x900

You should compare this chart with state poverty rates. I think you'll see a correlation.

[SpursforSix]

so its what, in the top quartile despite also having some of the most populated metro areas in the country? nice :tu

results arent usually perfectly linear in any situation, though trend lines are still useful tools

That was kind of my point. Presenting one chart without accounting for large metro areas or poverty rate, etc. doesn't really tell a full story.

[SnakeBoy]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/DjkL7p4RzgV4VVgUij/200w.webp?cid=ecf05e47g33vvuxpd8wcofgk9gww6jpnds8c we0ffbli2jr9&rid=200w.webp&ct=g

[Thread]

https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/449548/lavrov-putin.jpg

[spurraider21]

That was kind of my point. Presenting one chart without accounting for large metro areas or poverty rate, etc. doesn't really tell a full story.
on the contrary. the worst performing states are the ones you wouldnt expect if you look at things like population density. wyoming? montana? alaska?

[Thread]

& in that circa I thought we were royally porked after Bork.

Uh, uh.

& didn't President Trump nail all 3-THREE-3 of his picks? Christ-a-mighty!!!

[Thread]

https://i.imgur.com/GrYJP4j.gif




T S A

[SpursforSix]

on the contrary. the worst performing states are the ones you wouldnt expect if you look at things like population density. wyoming? montana? alaska?

It needs to be looked at on a city basis imo. It's all in how the data is presented.
I can show you a list of the cities with the largest % of African Americans and almost every one of those is in the top 40 highest murder rate cities.

[Thread]

The Supreme Court
STRUCK-IT-DOWN!!!

[The Gemini Method]

Interesting.

[ducks]

Restricting concealed carry laws did not stop what happened in buffalo
Less restrictions might have changed outcome

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

on the one hand, more people will probably die as a result of this latest piece of shit wrapped in vellum masquerading as legal reasoning handed down by the 100% party-politicized US Supreme Court.

on the other hand, more guns may be sold

[pgardn]

Restricting concealed carry laws did not stop what happened in buffalo
Less restrictions might have changed outcome

So you think the good guys in New York will carry and crime will go down.
This is what will occur? Cant wait to see the outcome.

[spurraider21]

It needs to be looked at on a city basis imo. It's all in how the data is presented.
I can show you a list of the cities with the largest % of African Americans and almost every one of those is in the top 40 highest murder rate cities.
even if taken at face value, this doesnt help us from a policy perspective, seeing as how genociding black people isnt really on the table

[SpursforSix]

even if taken at face value, this doesnt help us from a policy perspective, seeing as how genociding black people isnt really on the table

I agree. And I'm not saying that blacks are inherently more violent than other races. Just that the problem with gun violence may have more to do with urban poverty than gun laws. Not that I'm against tightening gun laws.

[spurraider21]

I agree. And I'm not saying that blacks are inherently more violent than other races. Just that the problem with gun violence may have more to do with urban poverty than gun laws. Not that I'm against tightening gun laws.
right. buy wyoming, alaska, montana, arkansas etc are not states with a lot of urban poverty, and yet they are at or near the top of the list for the most gun deaths per capita

[Thread]

The Supreme Court
STRUCK-IT-DOWN!!!

[SpursforSix]

right. buy wyoming, alaska, montana, arkansas etc are not states with a lot of urban poverty, and yet they are at or near the top of the list for the most gun deaths per capita

As to Arkansas, Little Rock is one of the most violent cities in the U.S. and makes up for a large % or Arkansas population.

For some reason, 86% of gun deaths in Wyoming and Montana were by suicide.

Here's what they say about Alaska:
"In Alaska, young American Indian/ Alaska Native and Black males are disproportionately impacted by firearm homicide. American Indian/ Alaska Native males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 4.5 times higher than White males of the same age group and Black males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 9 times higher than White males of the same age group."

I'm wondering if the relatively high native populations in Wyoming and Montana also have something to do with the high death rates by guns. Especially since so many are suicides. Maybe, "urban poverty" was wrong. Maybe it's just poverty.

[SpursforSix]

As to Arkansas, Little Rock is one of the most violent cities in the U.S. and makes up for a large % or Arkansas population.

For some reason, 86% of gun deaths in Wyoming and Montana were by suicide.

Here's what they say about Alaska:
"In Alaska, young American Indian/ Alaska Native and Black males are disproportionately impacted by firearm homicide. American Indian/ Alaska Native males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 4.5 times higher than White males of the same age group and Black males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 9 times higher than White males of the same age group."

I'm wondering if the relatively high native populations in Wyoming and Montana also have something to do with the high death rates by guns. Especially since so many are suicides. Maybe, "urban poverty" was wrong. Maybe it's just poverty.

https://sprc.org/sites/default/files/Slide21-n.PNG

[Ef-man]

https://sprc.org/sites/default/files/Slide21-n.PNG

Or they could be veterans with PTSD.

[The Gemini Method]

I have relatives in Juneau, and they're pretty succinct with their "wild wild west" anecdotes of the gun violence up there. It's pretty crazy.

[DMC]

so its what, in the top quartile despite also having some of the most populated metro areas in the country? nice :tu

results arent usually perfectly linear in any situation, though trend lines are still useful tools

But I thought it was about guns.

[Blake]

Even poor people have a right to bear an AR-15

[spurraider21]

As to Arkansas, Little Rock is one of the most violent cities in the U.S. and makes up for a large % or Arkansas population.

For some reason, 86% of gun deaths in Wyoming and Montana were by suicide.

Here's what they say about Alaska:
"In Alaska, young American Indian/ Alaska Native and Black males are disproportionately impacted by firearm homicide. American Indian/ Alaska Native males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 4.5 times higher than White males of the same age group and Black males aged 15-34 have a firearm homicide rate 9 times higher than White males of the same age group."

I'm wondering if the relatively high native populations in Wyoming and Montana also have something to do with the high death rates by guns. Especially since so many are suicides. Maybe, "urban poverty" was wrong. Maybe it's just poverty.
so either blacks or native americans :lol

[DMC]

So the GOP wins this major SCOTUS ruling and the left gets what, a possible minor record peek and a boyfriend clause? Wow that's winning.

[Winehole23]

Citing Dred Scott for support

1540062479522287616

[spurraider21]

so either blacks or native americans :lol
should also look into the transgender angle too

[daboom1]

A great day for America and our Constitution.

[Blake]

A great day for America and our Constitution.

Qris wants more death by gun

[Thread]

A great day for America and our Constitution.


boom!!!!!!!!!

[DMC]

Citing Dred Scott for support

1540062479522287616

:lol no

He's obviously showing how the 2nd Amendment was viewed by the SCOTUS at that time, as having the right to keep and carry a firearm where ever they went. It said nothing of the case itself, but this dishonest (or stupid) distraction probably grabbed some, like WH.

[DMC]

Qris wants more death by gun

You didn't mind when it was an unarmed woman entering the capital. Hell, you celebrated it.

[DMC]

I have relatives in Juneau, and they're pretty succinct with their "wild wild west" anecdotes of the gun violence up there. It's pretty crazy.

:lol ok

[SnakeBoy]

Citing Dred Scott for support

1540062479522287616

✔ It's Racist!

[daboom1]

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1540075228042346496?t

lol

[SpursforSix]

so either blacks or native americans :lol

Those are the two highest poverty rate groups.

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/289669727_436719915226255_3596535700233498408_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=_9epiUkMOLsAX8B1Mox&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AT9dw-in1xhdaHTxLU7-cE4nSxzlk9u0XUBdQX7SoQjJzQ&oe=62B9232F

[SnakeBoy]

1539990695796260865
1539985166545965056
1539989411374432256
1539983585406484480
1539986201733742594


1539995507103252483

[SnakeBoy]

1539988561298178048

Another lib summer of riots would be awesome

[Spurminator]

So the GOP wins this major SCOTUS ruling and the left gets what, a possible minor record peek and a boyfriend clause? Wow that's winning.

DMC tilting at straw windmills again :lol

[Blake]

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/289669727_436719915226255_3596535700233498408_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=_9epiUkMOLsAX8B1Mox&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AT9dw-in1xhdaHTxLU7-cE4nSxzlk9u0XUBdQX7SoQjJzQ&oe=62B9232F

Or Muslim

[boutons_deux]

Or Muslim

They would ail be Tamir-Rice'd

[daboom1]

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/289669727_436719915226255_3596535700233498408_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=_9epiUkMOLsAX8B1Mox&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AT9dw-in1xhdaHTxLU7-cE4nSxzlk9u0XUBdQX7SoQjJzQ&oe=62B9232F

racist

[DMC]

DMC tilting at straw windmills again :lol

https://c.tenor.com/-Oi87aO_juQAAAAC/tears-sadness.gif

[DMC]

Or Muslim

:lol Blake moved to Islam as a safe space after det cucking, been stumping for them since.

[Winehole23]

A law that stood in NY for 110 years isn't a valid historical precedent, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England is.

1540000513189502979

[Winehole23]

A law that stood in NY for 110 years (until today) isn't a valid historical precedent, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England is.

1540000513189502979

[Winehole23]

"

[Blake]

:lol Blake moved to Islam as a safe space after det cucking, been stumping for them since.

DMC's safe space is his Rolodex

[ElNono]

The ruling itself is kinda weird... it mentions that...

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need," Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion. "That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion.... And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense."

That much is true, however, somewhere in there there's a tacit admission that States requiring and issuing permits (or not issuing them) is permissible.

After all, we know that certain type of protests/events, which fall right into the First Amendment category, do require a permit. Thomas also didn't seem to have an issue with shall-issue permits.

So one would think the State will simply up what those requirements are... then go dance with this thing again.

[Thread]

The Supreme Court
STRUCK-IT-DOWN!!!

[Winehole23]

1540068426357608449

[Winehole23]

1540073986163322881

[Winehole23]

Fortress safety for me, daily gun violence for thee.

1540015889927622656

[Thread]

https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/449548/lavrov-putin.jpg

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV9c4olX0AEEYsr?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Winehole23]

The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV90pJhXoAIZ3mw?format=jpg&name=medium

[Thread]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV90pJhXoAIZ3mw?format=jpg&name=medium
The Supreme Court
STRUCK-IT-DOWN!!!

https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/449548/lavrov-putin.jpg

[DMC]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV90pJhXoAIZ3mw?format=jpg&name=medium

:lol

Show this arbitrary mini-government why you need your rights. Let's not forget the 1st Amendment too.

[Winehole23]

:lol

Show this arbitrary mini-government why you need your rights. Let's not forget the 1st Amendment too.:blah

[DMC]

:blah

This isn't your week.

2 major SCOTUS losses and nothing substantial on gun laws...

Dems doing more for the GOP than Trump did.

[Blake]

DMC's straw week

[DMC]

DMC's straw week

Sorry this is happening to you

[pgardn]

This isn't your week.

2 major SCOTUS losses and nothing substantial on gun laws...

Dems doing more for the GOP than Trump did.

DMC more focused on the issue here.
He is a big pro life freak once those grandkids came into his life!

[Thread]

DMC more focused on the issue here.
He is a big pro life freak once those grandkids came into his life!

You got your clock fuckin' cleaned, eh, peeg? First in New York, now Roe goes down.

What a fuckin' Friday!!!

[DMC]

DMC more focused on the issue here.
He is a big pro life freak once those grandkids came into his life!

Lashing out

[Blake]

Sorry this is happening to you

You're sorry I'm laughing at you?

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576

I thought my state would have fought this in the courts for years. Shocked.

[DMC]

https://mobile.twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576

I thought my state would have fought this in the courts for years. Shocked.

"of good moral character"

Can't be a single CHL holder in California.

[pgardn]

You got your clock fuckin' cleaned, eh, peeg? First in New York, now Roe goes down.

What a fuckin' Friday!!!

Yeah. That even some gun law was passed was a real stinker, eh?
And I totally get why people are so vehemently pro life.
But I also know there are people who absolutely dont care about the life part.
They are only interested in a parent getting punished for having sex. (Yeah its true, I was shocked to find out. Usually ultra religious freaks who have lost their moral compass in a stinky swamp of orange. Like Donald cared... )

But as the people are the government, I want you to go to a state in which abortion is legal and talk an expectant mother who wants an abortion into keeping her child as you will adopt.
Its like your religion.
Go tell someone what to do and then put your money and actions where your mouth is.
You wont. Biggie up, be a man. Be a real man.

[DMC]

Yeah. That even some gun law was passed was a real stinker, eh?
And I totally get why people are so vehemently pro life.
But I also know there are people who absolutely dont care about the life part.
They are only interested in a parent getting punished for having sex. (Yeah its true, I was shocked to find out. Usually ultra religious freaks who have lost their moral compass in a stinky swamp of orange. Like Donald cared... )

But as the people are the government, I want you to go to a state in which abortion is legal and talk an expectant mother who wants an abortion into keeping her child as you will adopt.
Its like your religion.
Go tell someone what to do and then put your money and actions where your mouth is.
You wont. Biggie up, be a man. Be a real man.

Imagine being associated with a religious organization. Who would ever do that?

Real man :lol

[pgardn]

Imagine being associated with a religious organization. Who would ever do that?



Oh a little less that half of the US grumps.

Still trying to defend your gun law stumble I see.

[pgardn]

Oh daddy!

DMC edited, DMC edited, nothing counts now!
House rules from the removed unbiased observer of the internets.

[daboom1]

Make sure you're right...


https://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Clarence-Thomas-Randy-SnyderAP--640x480.jpg


Then give peegs the 12 incher.

[pgardn]

Oh the Christianity flowing through the board!
I can feel the power of comedy!
Lord our God beejesus Christ!

Let us now kneel and freewheel.


Chris really cares about abortion, he really really wants to see it stop.
gtfoh... You fool only yourself.
Let you bow your head and service DMC and his snake monster to fill a big void.

[ElNono]

"of good moral character"

Can't be a single CHL holder in California.

Exactly, that's a feature, not a bug.

[DMC]

Exactly, that's a feature, not a bug.

It's called "we know best" feature. SCOTUS said "uh uh".

[DMC]

Oh the Christianity flowing through the board!
I can feel the power of comedy!
Lord our God beejesus Christ!

Let us now kneel and freewheel.


Chris really cares about abortion, he really really wants to see it stop.
gtfoh... You fool only yourself.
Let you bow your head and service DMC and his snake monster to fill a big void.

You're probably red flagged for being mentally unstable and incoherent.

[ElNono]

It's called "we know best" feature. SCOTUS said "uh uh".

SCOTUS said that was legal in their opinion. At least for now.

[Thread]

Make sure you're right...


https://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Clarence-Thomas-Randy-SnyderAP--640x480.jpg


Then give peegs the 12 incher.


Amen!!!

[daboom1]

Amen!!!

:lol

[pgardn]

You're probably red flagged for being mentally unstable and incoherent.

I am probably...

Thats worth a couple of nothings coming from the knife eater.
What are you probably? Besides the arbiter of the middle ground, the logically rock solid old piece of dung.
The persistence of the hypocrites on this board is amazing. No shame whatsoever.

[DMC]

I am probably...

Thats worth a couple of nothings coming from the knife eater.
What are you probably? Besides the arbiter of the middle ground, the logically rock solid old piece of dung.
The persistence of the hypocrites on this board is amazing. No shame whatsoever.

You're one to talk.

[DMC]

SCOTUS said that was legal in their opinion. At least for now.

Not according to the California AG.

[ElNono]

Not according to the California AG.

Yes, according to the California AG.

However, local officials can and should continue to apply and enforce all other aspects of California law with respect to issuing public-carry licenses. In particular, the requirement that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of "good moral character" remains constitutional.

It's in the AG note that was linked here and you probably didn't read.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes, according to the California AG.

However, local officials can and should continue to apply and enforce all other aspects of California law with respect to issuing public-carry licenses. In particular, the requirement that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of "good moral character" remains constitutional.

It's in the AG note that was linked here and you probably didn't read.

TSA who linked the AG note probably didn’t read it either.

:lol today’s 2A cultists

[daboom1]

Make sure you're right...


https://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Clarence-Thomas-Randy-SnyderAP--640x480.jpg


Then give TP the 12 incher.

[ElNono]

TSA who linked the AG note probably didn’t read it either.

:lol today’s 2A cultists

This is why I posted this and why I think generally speaking the ruling is more or less inconsequential:


The ruling itself is kinda weird... it mentions that...

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need," Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion. "That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion.... And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense."

That much is true, however, somewhere in there there's a tacit admission that States requiring and issuing permits (or not issuing them) is permissible.

After all, we know that certain type of protests/events, which fall right into the First Amendment category, do require a permit. Thomas also didn't seem to have an issue with shall-issue permits.

So one would think the State will simply up what those requirements are... then go dance with this thing again.

[Th'Pusher]

This is why I posted this and why I think generally speaking the ruling is more or less inconsequential:

I got you. the 2A cultists were too busy prematurely celebrating their inconsequential win to actually comprehend what you/SCOTUS wrote. But hey, they know the difference between a clip and a magazine so that’s cool.

[DarrinS]

:cry

[Th'Pusher]

:cry

:lol too dumb and drunk to comprehend

[ElNono]

I got you. the 2A cultists were too busy prematurely celebrating their inconsequential win to actually comprehend what you/SCOTUS wrote. But hey, they know the difference between a clip and a magazine so that’s cool.

Well, I mean, it's just the start on what looks to be a much longer battle.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, I mean, it's just the start on what looks to be a much longer battle.

For sure. Hence the premature celebration

[DarrinS]

:lol too dumb and drunk to comprehend

:cry

[Th'Pusher]

:cry

There’s nothing to cry about RE this yet.

Get back into the MGD.

[ElNono]

For sure. Hence the premature celebration

No reason why they shouldn't celebrate, tbh... this is certainly one less procedural reason preventing issuance of concealed carry permits.

[SnakeBoy]

Sounds like Libs have decided their L's are actually W's, just like the Ukrainians.

[Th'Pusher]

No reason why they shouldn't celebrate, tbh... this is certainly one less procedural reason preventing issuance of concealed carry permits.

Sure, but more or less inconsequential. TSA didn’t seem to grasp that fact which is why he was surprised the DA didn’t fight it tooth and nail or whatever he said (I’m on my phone and don’t care to quote him)…

Point being the 2A cultists don’t actually understand the implications of the decision. They’re just celebrating because they’re being told to celebrate by gunpolicyadvocates.dong

And then you have complete morons like DarrinS and Qhris who’d accidentally shoot their first born if given access to a firearm jumping in to feel better about themselves and post memes and emojis with no fundamental understanding of the issue. The whole thing is comical. It’s kinda dark comedy (no racist)

[Th'Pusher]

Sounds like Libs have decided their L's are actually W's, just like the Ukrainians.

12:25am…Snacks just got finished with a wife pegging. Saturday night special. Don’t worry. She showed him who was boss.

[ElNono]

Sounds like Libs have decided their L's are actually W's, just like the Ukrainians.

Sorry this is happening to you, tbh... Joe broke you.

[SnakeBoy]

Sorry this is happening to you, tbh... Joe broke you.

I like Biden's America, been telling you that for a year or more. You're trying to distance yourself I've noticed. You let the old man pop your cherry, no coming back from that tbh.

[Blake]

Sounds like Libs have decided their L's are actually W's, just like the Ukrainians.

I thought Russia finished them off in a few weeks. Is that war still going?

[Blake]

I like Biden's America

:lol so you vote R just to pwn the libs

[Thread]

I thought Russia finished them off in a few weeks. Is that war still going?

...are you still paying $5 a gallon?
tee, hee.
Russia ain't. They're paying $2 a gallon like we were paying under President Trump.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol so you vote R just to pwn the libs

I vote R to stop the regressive left. Trump was destroying them on purpose, Biden is destroying them just by being Joe Biden. It was a win/win election as I said many times.

[ChumpDumper]

I vote R to stop the regressive left. Trump was destroying them on purpose, Biden is destroying them just by being Joe Biden. It was a win/win election as I said many times.What is it about the left that frightens you so?

[Blake]

I vote R to stop the regressive left. Trump was destroying them on purpose, Biden is destroying them just by being Joe Biden. It was a win/win election as I said many times.

Is he though? I'm not seeing it

[Blake]

What is it about the left that frightens you so?

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/739c8f7/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4000x2667+0+0/resize/1486x991!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F3b%2F4f%2Fc413f3a141 3f9731edaf3acafe50%2Fla-photos-1staff-463698-la-me-dtla-proud-festival-63.jpg

[ElNono]

I like Biden's America, been telling you that for a year or more. You're trying to distance yourself I've noticed. You let the old man pop your cherry, no coming back from that tbh.

You hate your daddy Joe. You can't stop reminding us how angry you are he beat the ever living shit out of Dennison.

Hopefully the butthurt will go away one day...

[ElNono]

I vote R to stop the regressive left.

:lol Nothing says progressive like erasing 50 years of jurisprudence.

The mental gymnastics of Trumptards, smh

[SnakeBoy]

Is he though? I'm not seeing it

You're slow to see things that are right in front of you

[DMC]

Yes, according to the California AG.

However, local officials can and should continue to apply and enforce all other aspects of California law with respect to issuing public-carry licenses. In particular, the requirement that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of "good moral character" remains constitutional.

It's in the AG note that was linked here and you probably didn't read.
Of course I read it. I am the one who cited it :lol

You're responding to a claim I never made. I said "there's not a single CHL holder in California" to which you responded "That's a feature, not a bug". That's why I said SCOTUS said no. I know the AG's decision was to not require cause to carry. Texas has the same "moral character" clause only they list it out as specific issues like misdemeanors and child support, etc..

[daboom1]

Of course I read it. I am the one who cited it :lol

You're responding to a claim I never made. I said "there's not a single CHL holder in California" to which you responded "That's a feature, not a bug". That's why I said SCOTUS said no. I know the AG's decision was to not require cause to carry. Texas has the same "moral character" clause only they list it out as specific issues like misdemeanors and child support, etc..

:lol

[ElNono]

Of course I read it. I am the one who cited it :lol

You're responding to a claim I never made. I said "there's not a single CHL holder in California" to which you responded "That's a feature, not a bug". That's why I said SCOTUS said no. I know the AG's decision was to not require cause to carry. Texas has the same "moral character" clause only they list it out as specific issues like misdemeanors and child support, etc..

It's easy to quote what you said:


"of good moral character"

Can't be a single CHL holder in California.

And I said that's a feature not a bug, because what a person "of good moral character" can be defined as needing to meet whatever arbitrary requirements, which is the point I was making in my original post.

The SCOTUS simply ruled on States asking for one specific requirement by States, but didn't actually remove the ability for States to issue permits. Which means States can include any arbitrary provision (like "of good moral character", but minus the single one they ruled unconstitutional) in order to deny issuing permits, and relitigating this all over again. This is why this ruling is largely inconsequential, and why the California AG won't fight this, as there's plenty of other, still allegedly constitutional, ways to deny permits.

[DMC]

It's easy to quote what you said:



And I said that's a feature not a bug, because what a person "of good moral character" can be defined as needing to meet whatever arbitrary requirements, which is the point I was making in my original post.

The SCOTUS simply ruled on States asking for one specific requirement by States, but didn't actually remove the ability for States to issue permits. Which means States can include any arbitrary provision (like "of good moral character", but minus the single one they ruled unconstitutional) in order to deny issuing permits, and relitigating this all over again. This is why this ruling is largely inconsequential, and why the California AG won't fight this, as there's plenty of other, still allegedly constitutional, ways to deny permits.

You're using your speculation as to how the authorities having jurisdiction will consider (or alter their consideration of) good moral character. That's not noteworthy enough to even debate. As it stands, "why do you need it" is no longer a question they can ask. If they want to go to arbitrary moral requirements, SCOTUS can address that as well.

[ElNono]

You're using your speculation as to how the authorities having jurisdiction will consider (or alter their consideration of) good moral character. That's not noteworthy enough to even debate. As it stands, "why do you need it" is no longer a question they can ask. If they want to go to arbitrary moral requirements, SCOTUS can address that as well.

No, I'm not speculating. I'm pointing out the fact that the ruling kept that door open, and even the author for the majority opinion was explicit about it. The fact that the California AG brought it up as well, simply backs up that contention.

Of course the SCOTUS can address that as well, post lengthy litigation, which I also pointed out. What needs to happen is the SCOTUS setting a legal standard of what those requirements must meet in order not to be unconstitutional, which they didn't do this time around (and I found strange).

[Blake]

You're slow to see things that are right in front of you

Right in front of me is the board making fun of you for being slow.

[Thread]

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/06-Trump-Did-SM-1080.jpg?ve=1&tl=1


"Who's the wild man now!!!"

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUS scotus directly causing an additional many thousands of gun injuries and deaths per year

More guns always means more gun violence

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUS scotus directly causing an additional many thousands of gun injuries and deaths per year

More guns always means more gun violence

SCOTUS directly causing an additional many thousands of gun injuries and deaths per year

More guns always means more gun violence

Gun manufacturer stocks jumped, every one is owned by private equity

[DMC]

No, I'm not speculating. I'm pointing out the fact that the ruling kept that door open, and even the author for the majority opinion was explicit about it. The fact that the California AG brought it up as well, simply backs up that contention.

Of course the SCOTUS can address that as well, post lengthy litigation, which I also pointed out. What needs to happen is the SCOTUS setting a legal standard of what those requirements must meet in order not to be unconstitutional, which they didn't do this time around (and I found strange).

Again, the bottom line is that California cannot ask "why do you need a gun?"

This is a big deal. It shows California AG getting ahead of the lawsuits if someone was denied because their reason to carry didn't meet the threshold of the authority having jurisdiction.

[DMC]

Right in front of me is the board making fun of you for being slow.

OK Slingblade. Some people call it a Kaiser blade, you call it a slingblade mmmm hmmm

[Thread]

OK Slingblade. Some people call it a Kaiser blade, you call it a slingblade mmmm hmmm


https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/449548/lavrov-putin.jpg

[Blake]

OK Slingblade. Some people call it a Kaiser blade, you call it a slingblade mmmm hmmm

Yes, you need to shield for one the three board magatards that give you the post likes that you crave.

[SnakeBoy]

Right in front of me is the board making fun of you for being slow.

The board :lol

[ElNono]

Again, the bottom line is that California cannot ask "why do you need a gun?"

Sure. But California can certainly ask for, say, "a written note from the California Attorney General approving the permit", or any such arbitrary rule. "Why do you need a gun?" was such an arbitrary rule as well.


This is a big deal. It shows California AG getting ahead of the lawsuits if someone was denied because their reason to carry didn't meet the threshold of the authority having jurisdiction.

The California AG is merely notifying jurisdictions of the new ruling and reminding them what parts of the permit process is still constitutional. This is what you expect an AG to do.

[HemisfairArena]

Sure. But California can certainly ask for, say, "a written note from the California Attorney General approving the permit", or any such arbitrary rule. "Why do you need a gun?" was such an arbitrary rule as well.



The California AG is merely notifying jurisdictions of the new ruling and reminding them what parts of the permit process is still constitutional. This is what you expect an AG to do.


dumbass as usual,,,:lmao

[ElNono]

dumbass as usual,,,:lmao

:lol that's telling me

Looks like I have a fan following me around again, the butthurt is severe :lol

[HemisfairArena]

:lol that's telling me

Looks like I have a fan following me around again, the butthurt is severe :lol

triggered,,,:lmao

[ElNono]

yep :lmao:lmao:lmao

[HemisfairArena]

yep :lmao:lmao:lmao

triggered,,,:lmao

[ElNono]

:lol tell us how you really feel... let it all out :lmao

[Thread]

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/06-Trump-Did-SM-1080.jpg?ve=1&tl=1


"Who's the wild man now!!!"

[DMC]

The board :lol

The crew aka the echo chamber aka the ST Avengers

You know, the entities the left here claims do not exist, but they rely on openly just the same. About like "both sides" which is lol material for them until they need to use it.

[DMC]

Sure. But California can certainly ask for, say, "a written note from the California Attorney General approving the permit", or any such arbitrary rule. "Why do you need a gun?" was such an arbitrary rule as well.



The California AG is merely notifying jurisdictions of the new ruling and reminding them what parts of the permit process is still constitutional. This is what you expect an AG to do.

Or they could simply pull over the applicant and arrest them for coke they planted, rendering the applicant no longer eligible.

[Blake]

The crew aka the echo chamber aka the ST Avengers

You know, the entities the left here claims do not exist, but they rely on openly just the same. About like "both sides" which is lol material for them until they need to use it.

DMC's Rolodex

[DMC]

DMC remembers things, that's weird

[Winehole23]

DMC's Rolodex

https://myfreebingocards.com/bingo-card-generator/results?img=1&title=DMC+Bingo&words=The+Left%0D%0ABend+Over%2C+I%27ll+Show+You%0 D%0ADunning-Krueger%0D%0AST+Avengers%0D%0AI+Will+Not+Be+Pawed+ At%0D%0APoster+B%0D%0AThe+Narrative%0D%0AGet+Your+ Own+Shit%0D%0ACities+Were+Burned+Down%0D%0ATribali sm%0D%0AFaggot%0D%0ARacial+Sensitivity+Circus%0D%0 AWhat+About+Andrew+Cuomo%3F%0D%0AYou%27re+Followin g+Me+Around+%0D%0A%22Love+It+or+Leave+It%22%0D%0AO P+is+a+Wetback%0D%0AIt%27s+a+Historic+Winter+Storm %2C+Some+Issues+Expected%0D%0AYou%27re+an+Idiot%0D %0AMono+is+Spanish+for+Monkey%0D%0AGoldberg%2C+ice berg%2C+What%27s+the+Difference%3F%0D%0ALiberals%0 D%0A%22Web+of+Shit%22%0D%0AYour+God%0D%0AVoted+for +Obama+and+Biden%0D%0AMuh+Gunz%0D%0A&theme=corporate&size=5&per-page=2&free-space-text=FREE+SPACE&not-random=1&s=1

[Winehole23]

https://myfreebingocards.com/bingo-card-generator/results?img=1&title=DMC+Bingo&words=The+Narrative%0D%0AThe+Left%0D%0AI+Will+Not+ Be+Pawed+at%0D%0ATribalism%0D%0AYou%E2%80%99re+an+ Idiot%0D%0APushed+Your+Shit+In%0D%0AThe+Hive+%0D%0 AHonest+Broker%0D%0AIt%E2%80%99s+a+Historic+Winter %2C+Some+Issues+Expected%0D%0AStop+Stealing+My+Shi t%0D%0AJeebus%0D%0ACities+Were+Burned+Down%0D%0ACi rcle+of+Trust%0D%0AWhat+About+Andrew+Cuomo%3F%0D%0 AThe+Crew%0D%0AFag%0D%0ABend+Over%2C+I%E2%80%99ll+ Show+You%0D%0AVoted+For+Obama+and+Biden%0D%0ADunni ng-Krueger%0D%0AIt%27s+all+Optics%0D%0AThar%27+Be+Gho sts%0D%0AStill+jizz+mopping+I+see.+Chop+chop%0D%0A The+Collective%0D%0AJethro%0D%0AYou%27re+following +me+from+thread+to+thread!%0D%0A%0D%0A&theme=corporate&size=5&per-page=2&free-space-text=FREE+SPACE%AC-random=1&s=1

[daboom1]

dumbass as usual,,,:lmao

:lol

[Th'Pusher]

Or they could simply pull over the applicant and arrest them for coke they planted, rendering the applicant no longer eligible.

Lol at this white flag. Just admit you prematurely ejaculated over the inconsequential ruling and move on to your next troll job.

:lol on losing arguments on the only issue you argue with actual conviction

[TSA]

Lol at this white flag. Just admit you prematurely ejaculated over the inconsequential ruling and move on to your next troll job.

:lol on losing arguments on the only issue you argue with actual conviction

Inconsequential? How so?

[DMC]

Lol at this white flag. Just admit you prematurely ejaculated over the inconsequential ruling and move on to your next troll job.

:lol on losing arguments on the only issue you argue with actual conviction
Notable that your entire presence here is one of interjection since you're never really asked for your actual opinion otherwise. You weren't asked this time either, for the record.

[Th'Pusher]

Inconsequential? How so?

Read the thread there’s a reason the CA AD didn’t fight the ruling.

[Th'Pusher]

Notable that your entire presence here is one of interjection since you're never really asked for your actual opinion otherwise. You weren't asked this time either, for the record.

EN had you firmly in hand, like he always does.

[DMC]

EN had you firmly in hand, like he always does.

Dishonest hubris from someone who's triggered easily. :lol

[DMC]

Read the thread there’s a reason the CA AD didn’t fight the ruling.

You called it inconsequential, you explain it.

:lol expecting "I said so" to float here.

[DMC]

"there's a reason CA AD didn't fight the ruling"

SCOTUS ruling.. who are they going to go to, the uber Supreme Court of Legends? :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Dishonest hubris from someone who's triggered easily. :lol

Another white flag. Maybe you can try explaining to your fellow 2A cultist why the ruling was largely inconsequential. While you have extreme reading comprehension problems, he doesn’t appear to be able to read much at all.

[Th'Pusher]

You called it inconsequential, you explain it.

:lol expecting "I said so" to float here.

Why would I need to do it again when EN has already explained it itt. I understood what he was saying, the fact that you two cultists couldn’t isn’t my problem.

[Th'Pusher]

https://mobile.twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576

I thought my state would have fought this in the courts for years. Shocked.


"there's a reason CA AD didn't fight the ruling"

SCOTUS ruling.. who are they going to go to, the uber Supreme Court of Legends? :lol

Maybe talk to your fellow cultist?

[DMC]

Why would I need to do it again when EN has already explained it itt. I understood what he was saying, the fact that you two cultists couldn’t isn’t my problem.
Why would you need to say anything when no one here asked for your opinion? You called it inconsequential then balked when called on to explain. This should show anyone who wonders what your IQ level really is and how invested you are in doing anything here other than chasing me around with your nose up my ass.

[DMC]

Maybe talk to your fellow cultist?

It's your claim. You explain it. When the spotlight hits the crumb snatcher, said snatcher retreats into its hole.

Again, how would they fight it?

[Th'Pusher]

https://mobile.twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576

I thought my state would have fought this in the courts for years. Shocked.


"there's a reason CA AD didn't fight the ruling"

SCOTUS ruling.. who are they going to go to, the uber Supreme Court of Legends? :lol


Why would you need to say anything when no one here asked for your opinion? You called it inconsequential then balked when called on to explain. This should show anyone who wonders what your IQ level really is and how invested you are in doing anything here other than chasing me around with your nose up my ass.

I just called you out on your pathetic white flag upstream. As mentioned previously EN had you firmly in hand and had clearly explained why the ruling was inconsequential.

Sorry if that bothered you.

[ElNono]

Or they could simply pull over the applicant and arrest them for coke they planted, rendering the applicant no longer eligible.

That would be illegal. There's no point in doing that since, as mentioned, there are still legal ways to achieve the same outcome.

[ElNono]

beep boop

[TSA]

Read the thread there’s a reason the CA AD didn’t fight the ruling.

I've read the thread. How is the ruling inconsequential?

[ElNono]

I've read the thread. How is the ruling inconsequential?

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300154&p=10765950&viewfull=1#post10765950

[TSA]

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300154&p=10765950&viewfull=1#post10765950

Being of good moral character was always a part of obtaining a CCW in California. Removing good cause will result in county sherriffs issuing 10s of thousands of new CCW permits in California. That is not inconsequential.

[Blake]

Notable that your entire presence here is one of interjection since you're never really asked for your actual opinion otherwise. You weren't asked this time either, for the record.

DMC doesn't understand how open message boards work

DMC remembers things that have nothing to do with the message board topic at hand... i.e. free rent

[DMC]

That would be illegal. There's no point in doing that since, as mentioned, there are still legal ways to achieve the same outcome.

You're saying their desire is to have the same outcome regardless, and you've done nothing to illustrate that as truth.

[DMC]

DMC doesn't understand how open message boards work

DMC remembers things that have nothing to do with the message board topic at hand... i.e. free rent
You mean like you talking about me, unprompted?

[ElNono]

Being of good moral character was always a part of obtaining a CCW in California. Removing good cause will result in county sherriffs issuing 10s of thousands of new CCW permits in California. That is not inconsequential.

Besides the fact that "good moral character" is a requirement with arbitrary discretion to define from each State, there's nothing precluding States from imposing new arbitrary requirements just as long as they're not "good cause". At least not with this ruling.

The end result is that there are legal means to still preclude country sheriffs from issuing 10s of thousands of new CCW permits in California, New York, etc.

I have no doubt that will lead to a long litigation again, and the SCOTUS will rule again, but I was merely commenting on the weirdness of the SCOTUS not providing a legal standard for these requirement with this rulings, as the legal door left open is pretty ovbious.

[DMC]

Besides the fact that "good moral character" is a requirement with arbitrary discretion to define from each State, there's nothing precluding States from imposing new arbitrary requirements just as long as they're not "good cause". At least not with this ruling.

The end result is that there are legal means to still preclude country sheriffs from issuing 10s of thousands of new CCW permits in California, New York, etc.

I have no doubt that will lead to a long litigation again, and the SCOTUS will rule again, but I was merely commenting on the weirdness of the SCOTUS not providing a legal standard for these requirement with this rulings, as the legal door left open is pretty ovbious.

Seems you were actually just saying it's a nothingburger, and using the ability of sheriffs' and chiefs' to apply more rigorous filters to moral character requirements for applicants they want to dismiss. You're considering "legal" to be above "constitutional", even though this entire thread illustrates just the opposite.

[ElNono]

You're saying their desire is to have the same outcome regardless, and you've done nothing to illustrate that as truth.

Sure I have. When it comes to Constitutional questions, the SCOTUS generally provides a legal test to guide lower courts. For some reason, it didn't in this case, specifically when it comes to requirements for the permits.

It actually went a step further and acknowledged that shall-issue type of regulation is permissible. As you well know, shall-issue means:

Shall issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit.

[Blake]

You mean like you talking about me, unprompted?

About what's said here in the threads themselves, yes, very good!

[DMC]

Sure I have. When it comes to Constitutional questions, the SCOTUS generally provides a legal test to guide lower courts. For some reason, it didn't in this case, specifically when it comes to requirements for the permits.

It actually went a step further and acknowledged that shall-issue type of regulation is permissible. As you well know, shall-issue means:

Shall issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit.
Where did you illustrate California wishes to have the same issue level as they have now?

[DMC]

If you can show that someone was denied a CHL based on double standards, you could probably sue based on equal protection.

[ElNono]

Seems you were actually just saying it's a nothingburger, and using the ability of sheriffs' and chiefs' to apply more rigorous filters to moral character requirements for applicants they want to dismiss. You're considering "legal" to be above "constitutional", even though this entire thread illustrates just the opposite.

You're getting there. It's legal in so far as there's no challenges to it and ruled illegal. This is why generally the SCOTUS issues a legal standard of review in these actions, such that those questions can be readily answered without having to go all the way back up to the SCOTUS.

I found it strange they didn't do that in this case, that's what I was commenting on.

[ElNono]

Where did you illustrate California wishes to have the same issue level as they have now?

I never made that claim, link? I said if they choose to go that path, there's a perfectly legal avenue to do so, even with this ruling.

[ElNono]

If you can show that someone was denied a CHL based on double standards, you could probably sue based on equal protection.

Sure. You can also sue for any arbitrary requirements they might come up with if you deem them unconstitutional, just like good cause was.

Then go through the lengthy litigation and hopefully get a legal standard from the court that time around, so this doesn't keep on happening.

[DMC]

Sure. You can also sue for any arbitrary requirements they might come up with if you deem them unconstitutional, just like good cause was.

Then go through the lengthy litigation and hopefully get a legal standard from the court that time around, so this doesn't keep on happening.

So then in an effort to abide by SCOTUS ruling in NY, California would prompt groups to sue again by moving the goalpost, voluntarily.

[ElNono]

Conversely, you could argue that:

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,”

Amounts to the new legal standard of review... certainly debatable. Generally, standards include legal tests, and here it would be open ended, so we'll see.

[DMC]

SCOTUS said that was legal in their opinion. At least for now.

It started here. You said SCOTUS said "we know best" is legal, but "we know best" was about showing need, not about moral character. I even said Texas has basically the same moral character requirement only in more defined terms.

You said "that's a feature not a bug". If you didn't mean that's something the AG used with intention to get the same end result regardless of the ruling, then you haven't explained exactly what you meant. If you did mean that (I think you did), then you are saying that's California's intent. Otherwise it's not a feature, it's only a possibility.

I never made that claim, link? I said if they choose to go that path, there's a perfectly legal avenue to do so, even with this ruling.
If it's a feature then it's built in with that in mind. Else what's the feature?

[DMC]

btw, instead of double posting, just task kill when prompted to reload the page.

[ElNono]

So then in an effort to abide by SCOTUS ruling in NY, California would prompt groups to sue again by moving the goalpost, voluntarily.

Until struck down, it's enforceable, much like 'good cause' has been. This is no different than Texas passing abortion laws over and over with some sort of new constitutional angle, and then getting them struck down (until the recent Roe ruling).

It's not a novel concept at all.

[DMC]

Conversely, you could argue that:

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,”

Amounts to the new legal standard of review... certainly debatable. Generally, standards include legal tests, and here it would be open ended, so we'll see.

I don't know about conversely, but additionally, perhaps. Equal protection would still be on the table if two people with similar background were treated differently in legal decisions because of the whims of the official. Judges do it all the time but they aren't using moral characteristics and they have leeway.

[DMC]

Until struck down, it's enforceable, much like 'good cause' has been. This is no different than Texas passing abortion laws over and over with some sort of new constitutional angle, and then getting them struck down (until the recent Roe ruling).

It's not a novel concept at all.

Then why change anything? Why not wait for someone to point out NY?

[ElNono]

It started here. You said SCOTUS said "we know best" is legal, but "we know best" was about showing need, not about moral character. I even said Texas has basically the same moral character requirement only in more defined terms.

You said "that's a feature not a bug". If you didn't mean that's something the AG used with intention to get the same end result regardless of the ruling, then you haven't explained exactly what you meant. If you did mean that (I think you did), then you are saying that's California's intent. Otherwise it's not a feature, it's only a possibility.

I think the AG was explicit in highlighting that all other State requirements, including "good moral character", are still constitutional, per that ruling. This is almost verbatim to what he wrote. I don't think that was casual.

But the AG can't pass state laws, neither can the sheriffs, so if there's going to be any new or amended requirements, they'll have to come from the California State legislature. If I'll be a betting man, I'll bet that's coming next.


If it's a feature then it's built in with that in mind. Else what's the feature?

What I meant is that States deciding what are the arbitrary requirements to obtain a permit is a feature. It largely allows them to regulate permits issuance via State law. Just like in the 'good cause' case, they might pass requirements that might be found unconstitutional at some point, but that still requires lengthy litigation to get them off the books.

[ElNono]

I don't know about conversely, but additionally, perhaps. Equal protection would still be on the table if two people with similar background were treated differently in legal decisions because of the whims of the official. Judges do it all the time but they aren't using moral characteristics and they have leeway.

Not sure why you think they would threat people differently to begin with.

[ElNono]

I don't know about conversely, but additionally, perhaps. Equal protection would still be on the table if two people with similar background were treated differently in legal decisions because of the whims of the official. Judges do it all the time but they aren't using moral characteristics and they have leeway.

Not sure why you think they would treat people differently to begin with.

[ElNono]

Then why change anything? Why not wait for someone to point out NY?

Good cause was ruled unconstitutional, that implies things will have to change.

All these States felt compelled to reduce or eliminate the issuance of concealed carry, 'good cause' was a vehicle to do so. If they didn't feel they needed that, they wouldn't have had it in the first place, nor fought to keep it.

So one would have to conclude they'll just have to find a different vehicle, as none of those States made any mentions of substantive changes to gun regulation policy plans.

[Th'Pusher]

EN the most patient man on the internet.

[Winehole23]

Good cause was ruled unconstitutional, that implies things will have to change.

All these States felt compelled to reduce or eliminate the issuance of concealed carry, 'good cause' was a vehicle to do so. If they didn't feel they needed that, they wouldn't have had it in the first place, nor fought to keep it.

So one would have to conclude they'll just have to find a different vehicle, as none of those States made any mentions of substantive changes to gun regulation policy plans.Maine changed its educational funding guidelines from prohibiting religious instruction on the public dime to prohibiting funding discrimination against LGBTQIA+. Nothing preventing an analogous pivot in verbiage in NY.

[TSA]

Good cause was ruled unconstitutional, that implies things will have to change.

All these States felt compelled to reduce or eliminate the issuance of concealed carry, 'good cause' was a vehicle to do so. If they didn't feel they needed that, they wouldn't have had it in the first place, nor fought to keep it.

So one would have to conclude they'll just have to find a different vehicle, as none of those States made any mentions of substantive changes to gun regulation policy plans.

Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General

California gun owners have been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new dashboard leaked their personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

A video reviewed by The Reload shows the databases with detailed information were initially available for download via a button on the website’s mapping feature. They appeared to have been removed from public access by Tuesday afternoon and replaced with spreadsheets without the individualized identifying information.

The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

https://thereload.com/new-california-ag-website-leaks-massive-trove-of-gun-owner-private-information/

[ElNono]

Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General

California gun owners have been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new dashboard leaked their personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

A video reviewed by The Reload shows the databases with detailed information were initially available for download via a button on the website’s mapping feature. They appeared to have been removed from public access by Tuesday afternoon and replaced with spreadsheets without the individualized identifying information.

The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

https://thereload.com/new-california-ag-website-leaks-massive-trove-of-gun-owner-private-information/

Not sure what that has to do with what you replied to, but OK...

[DMC]

I think the AG was explicit in highlighting that all other State requirements, including "good moral character", are still constitutional, per that ruling. This is almost verbatim to what he wrote. I don't think that was casual.

But the AG can't pass state laws, neither can the sheriffs, so if there's going to be any new or amended requirements, they'll have to come from the California State legislature. If I'll be a betting man, I'll bet that's coming next.


i.e. speculation


What I meant is that States deciding what are the arbitrary requirements to obtain a permit is a feature. It largely allows them to regulate permits issuance via State law. Just like in the 'good cause' case, they might pass requirements that might be found unconstitutional at some point, but that still requires lengthy litigation to get them off the books.

But double standards are easy to prove. If California is applying double standards, even California know eventually a black man would have the same qualifications as a white man, yet the black man was denied using different standards. That would suit the fuck out of some prominent CA lawyers.

[Th'Pusher]

i.e. speculation


But double standards are easy to prove. If California is applying double standards, even California know eventually a black man would have the same qualifications as a white man, yet the black man was denied using different standards. That would suit the fuck out of some prominent CA lawyers.

The state simply needs to apply the arbitrary standards equally. This is no different the the arbitrary moral character clause CA has today which is why this ruling is inconsequential. It taken you two days and you still haven’t been able to grasp the most basic of concepts. Your fellow cultists is posting random posts that have nothing to do with the subject. Just bail.

[ElNono]

i.e. speculation

Sure. But, again, I've yet to see a public statement from California officials where they state their stance on gun regulation has changed. That, IMO, it's a clear indication where this is going.


But double standards are easy to prove. If California is applying double standards, even California know eventually a black man would have the same qualifications as a white man, yet the black man was denied using different standards. That would suit the fuck out of some prominent CA lawyers.

I didn't mention any double standards, so not sure why do you keep pushing this. An arbitrarily high bar can be enforced equally.

[ElNono]

Maine changed its educational funding guidelines from prohibiting religious instruction on the public dime to prohibiting funding discrimination against LGBTQIA+. Nothing preventing an analogous pivot in verbiage in NY.

Exactly. 'good cause' was a tool towards an end. As long as the end remains the same, it's all about finding a new tool.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWbacwFXEAEnxZ6?format=jpg&name=900x900https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/26/conservative-supreme-court-gun-control-00042417

[Thread]

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/06/918/516/06-Trump-Did-SM-1080.jpg?ve=1&tl=1


"Who's the wild man now!!!"

[TSA]

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1542521662058336256

[Blake]

MOAR!

[Thread]

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1542521662058336256


That great, wonderful man President Trump made this happen.
I love this man with all me heart.

But, how, how did he make this happen?
tee, hee.
I'm glad you asked that question.
& here is how...
He dumped Clinton side of the road, hunted three Justices who would stand up and stand fast. That's how.
The long & the short of it?
Trump President.
Not Clinton.

"Glory, glory hallelujah...His truth is marching on."

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1542521662058336256

Makes sense

[Winehole23]

NY passes new gun control law

1543028120579702792

[Winehole23]

[url]1543030373424267264

[Thread]

NY passes new gun control law

1543028120579702792

President Trump made them do that!!!

[Ef-man]

NY passes new gun control law

1543028120579702792

Reminds me of “cuius regio, eius religio” - whoever reigns, their religion.

Was easy to understand and solved lots of problems.

[ElNono]

NY passes new gun control law

1543028120579702792

But the NY Mayor is african american... and crime is historically low in NYC... how could it be?

rhetorical question

[Thread]

That great, wonderful man President Trump made this happen.
I love this man with all me heart.

But, how, how did he make this happen?
tee, hee.
I'm glad you asked that question.
& here is how...
He dumped Clinton side of the road, hunted three Justices who would stand up and stand fast. That's how.
The long & the short of it?
Trump President.
Not Clinton.

"Glory, glory hallelujah...His truth is marching on."

[Winehole23]

But the NY Mayor is african american... and crime is historically low in NYC... how could it be?

rhetorical questionother states should take note. legislatures can move much faster than the Supreme Court.

[Thread]

other states should take note. legislatures can move much faster than the Supreme Court.

...Trump did that.

[daboom1]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1544731632778854401?t

[ElNono]

Republicans, smh

[Blake]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1544731632778854401?t

Murder good now

[Spurminator]

Somebody needs to inform the KKK that they're supposed to vote Democrat, they've seemed confused for the past 50 years.

[Thread]

That great, wonderful man President Trump made this happen.
I love this man with all me heart.

But, how, how did he make this happen?
tee, hee.
I'm glad you asked that question.
& here is how...
He dumped Clinton side of the road, hunted three Justices who would stand up and stand fast. That's how.
The long & the short of it?
Trump President.
Not Clinton.

"Glory, glory hallelujah...His truth is marching on."

[Winehole23]

They're pissed about the John Brown Gun Club defending drag brunches from far right wackos.

1573330278197731328

[Winehole23]

SCOTUS's historical analysis is whimsical garbage



The archives Birch encountered were clean, dark, and mostly empty, with large tables upon which the archivist laid a series of fragile law books from previous centuries. Examining the delicate pages, Birch was surprised by what she found: Santa Ana prohibited (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23929694/1892-santa-ana-ca-ordinance-no-156.pdf) the concealed carry of weapons, including guns, in 1892, while neighboring Anaheim followed suit (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23930879/1893-anaheim-ca-ordinance-no-94.pdf) in 1893. Orange County itself, in which both cities are located, had also prohibited concealed carry for well more than a century (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23929638/1910-orange-county-ca-an-ordinance-to-prohibit-the-carrying-of-concealed-weapons.pdf).

In 2022’s Bruen (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf)decision (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf), the Supreme Court struck down bans on concealed carry and expanded upon (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/supreme-court-new-york-concealed-carry-law-gun-control-bruen.html) the previous standard for determining the constitutionality of gun regulations, declaring that authorities had to find analogous gun laws that existed prior to 1900. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, found that before that date, concealed carry bans were not part of America’s history and traditions, and they were thus unconstitutional. Yet here, in a basement archive, Birch found evidence to the contrary, lost to history. And she had barely scratched the surface.



Over and over again, Birch and Karabian found the same thing: strict limits on the use and possession of firearms, dating back at least to the 1850s, that belie Bruen’s vision of a 19th-century Wild West where the right to bear arms was almost never infringed on. The regulations uncovered were consistent as to weapons and across cities throughout Orange County, one of the more conservative counties in the state. “Many of these limitations were enacted shortly after cities were incorporated as part of their very first batch of laws,” Karabian said. “They were always framed as commonsense safety precautions.” She was surprised: “I thought: ‘Wait a minute—every city in conservative Orange County had a prohibition on concealed carry dating back to their earliest days?’ ”



These regulations covered the gamut: “Almost every city had prohibitions on concealed carry,” Karabian said. Not just license requirements, she noted, but outright bans: “One of their first acts was to make sure that people are safe, which meant not carrying concealed weapons.” Other ordinances outlawed the firing of any gun within the city. California cities also required gun owners to store gunpowder safely, and restricted the amount of it that a person could store at one time.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/moms-demand-action-gun-research-clarence-thomas.html

[Winehole23]

totally unsurprising that Republicans lie about the history


A representative sampling: In the 19th century, the concealed carry of firearms was expressly forbidden in Memphis, Tennessee (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930938-1867-memphis-tn-offenses-affecting-public-safety); Jersey City (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930937-1868-jersey-city-nj-concerning-the-carrying-of-dangerous-weapons), Hoboken (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930933-1885-hoboken-nj-to-prevent-the-carrying-of-loaded-or-concealed-weapons), and Plainfield (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930930-1895-plainfield-nj-concerning-firearms-and-other-deadly-weapons), New Jersey; Chicago, Illinois (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930936-1871-chicago-il-part-i-chapter-8-concealed-weapons); New Orleans, Louisiana (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930935-1882-new-orleans-la-general-ordinances); Olympia (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930934-1882-olympia-wa-ordinance-no-152) and Wilbur (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930931-1894-wilbur-wa-ordinance-no-a-17), Washington; and Denver, Colorado (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23930932-1886-denver-co-carrying-concealed-weapons). More than 50 local governments outlawed the firing of any weapon within city limits. About 30 localities restricted or outlawed the storage of gunpowder, including Santa Ana (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23931123-1891-santa-ana-ca-ordinance-no-132). A dozen localities limited, heavily taxed, or banned shooting ranges. (In 2017, a federal appeals court struck down (https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3312/14-3312-2017-01-18.pdf?ts=1484782247) a Chicago law that restricted—but did not outlaw—shooting ranges within the city, finding no “history and legal tradition” to support it.) More jurisdictions banned guns in private establishments; for instance, an 1817 ordinance (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23932104/1817-new-orleans-la-an-ordinance-respecting-public-balls.pdf) in New Orleans barred citizens from carrying weapons into a “public ball-room.” (In January, a federal judge blocked (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23568009/koons-v-nj-opinion.pdf) a New Jersey law that banned guns in bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues, finding that it was not supported by “the nation’s historical tradition.”)

[SnakeBoy]

Supreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks/ar-BB1oemzg


In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Congress has long restricted access to "'machinegun[s],'" a category of firearms defined by the ability to "shoot, automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger."

"Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—con- verts the rifle into a 'machinegun.' We hold that it does not," he wrote.

Justice Thomas the Great with another excellent 2nd Amendment opinion.

[Blake]

Why stop there? Just allow full automatic weapons.

For self defense.

[SnakeBoy]

Why stop there? Just allow full automatic weapons.

For self defense.

One step at a time, but yeah we need to correct Reagan's Folly. Trumps SC just might be the court willing to do it.

[clambake]

One step at a time, but yeah we need to correct Reagan's Folly. Trumps SC just might be the court willing to do it.

It’s your only hope.

[Blake]

One step at a time, but yeah we need to correct Reagan's Folly. Trumps SC just might be the court willing to do it.

Interesting since Trump's administration tried to ban bump stocks to begin with

[GAustex]

Flame throwers and grenade launchers too

[SnakeBoy]

Flame throwers and grenade launchers too

Those aren't considered firearms. Although I'm open to the argument since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify firearms.

[Thread]

Interesting since Trump's administration tried to ban bump stocks to begin with

Maybe the old man was playin' that 3D chess you fellows was always bragging about, Blake. Trump saw the light, lifted the ban hoping that the SC would see with the new lighting. The SC did, overturned the old man. The old man said today..."The SC has spoken, I'll abide their decision, and I will now go to luncheon with the children at McDonals. Chow!"

[Ef-man]

Supreme Court strikes down Yam Tits’ ban on bump stocks
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks/ar-BB1oemzg



Justice Thomas the Great with another excellent 2nd Amendment opinion.

fify

Don’t forget this was Yam Tits’ landmark firearms ban, own it

[SnakeBoy]

fify

Don’t forget this was Yam Tits’ landmark firearms ban, own it

Own it? I've never said he's a conservative, he's a democrat (old school like Biden, not muh progressive). Let's be real though, when it comes to the SC he did a bang up job pandering to us. Shout out to RBG, wouldn't have happened without her help.

[Ef-man]

Own it? I've never said he's a conservative, he's a democrat (old school like Biden, not muh progressive). Let's be real though, when it comes to the SC he did a bang up job pandering to us. Shout out to RBG, wouldn't have happened without her help.

So you are not a maga anymore cause Yam Tits is a rino and not into 2A? Nice.

Also, I know math is also not your thing but vote was 6-3, RBG would not have mattered on bumpstocks.

[Blake]

Those aren't considered firearms. Although I'm open to the argument since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify firearms.

I don't even think you're tongue in cheek. You're all in on burning the country down. That's why you're gonna vote Trump again.

That and just to pwn teh libs