US supreme court says yanks have a right to publicly carry guns

[Martin Van Buren Stan]

😂🤣😆

US Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution gives people the right to carry a gun outside their home, in a significant new ruling for gun rights.

The decision is expected to allow more people to legally carry firearms in some of America's biggest cities - such as LA, New York and Boston - and is the court's first major decision on gun rights in more than a decade.

It comes as Congress is working on changes to gun laws following shootings in Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were murdered, and in Buffalo, where 10 people were killed at a supermarket.

Thousands have since taken to the streets across the US demanding tighter gun control.

But the Supreme Court justices quashed a New York state law - in place since 1913 - that required people to show a particular need in order to get a licence to carry a concealed gun in public.

They said it violated the Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms".

New York Governor Kathy Hochul called the decision "absolutely shocking" and said she was "sorry this dark day has come."

https://news.sky.com/story/us-supreme-court-backs-right-to-carry-guns-in-public-12639208

[Mister Six]

Great. Looking forward to all the idiots that scream at each other when the NYC traffic is snarled up actually shooting each other and bystanders and probably me and my dog too. Fucking hell.

[bgmnts]

How?

How how how how how how how?

Fucking how?

[Mister Six]

Cunts. That's how.

[Barry Admin]

Great timing on this. Gee, I don't even know what to say. Enjoy your "freedom", dead people.

The video clip on the BBC news report is wild https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61915237

Watch the last couple of seconds when the cameraman says he hopes the gun isn't loaded.

[touchingcloth]

Why do they love the constitution so much? It's been amended however many times, so why wank over some old paper like a schoolboy in a railway sidings?

[Sebastian Cobb]

They only really stopped it in the first place because a load of black guys started doing it to prove a point, which they did.

[Zetetic]

"law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defence needs"

Clarence Thomas is an interesting man, I guess.

[Alberon]

Why do they love the constitution so much? It's been amended however many times, so why wank over some old paper like a schoolboy in a railway sidings?

The bit about bearing arms is from an amendment itself so it clearly isn't written in stone.

[Alberon]

"law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defence needs"

Clarence Thomas is an interesting man, I guess.

Well, of course they need guns, because everyone else has got them.

Fucking mental.

[Zetetic]

The bit about bearing arms is from an amendment itself so it clearly isn't written in stone.

And it's never been an unlimited, universal right.

I guess this decision speaks against United States v. Cruikshank (1876)?

[Zetetic]

Ahahah, no. States are still free to ban people from having guns on the basis of their background, but not the basis of whether they can demonstrate a need for a shooter or not.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Still again the bit that really gets me about gun control and checks is that private sales aren't monitored at all. It's like punting a guitar on gumtree.

I naturally assumed there was something like how a used car has a logbook.

And many states exploit this by allowing gun shows to be treated as private sales even if it's through a commercial seller. If any of you neeks have been to a computer or record fair, much like that,but you know, for fucking guns.

[Zetetic]

Although fewer Confederate flags at many computer and record fairs.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I always assumed fake badges on DIY computers were just pieces of flare for competing paedophile rings.

Fuck me I've just remembered the state of some of the vcd sale stalls (father daftly bought a CDI and decoder card before normal computers could do that) the only other person I knew who even knew what a vcds were was a Malaysian girl at at school 'cos they were seemingly huge in East-Asia and that provided few swapping opportunities over VHS.

[katzenjammer]

The bit about bearing arms is from an amendment itself so it clearly isn't written in stone.

Yeah but their daddies wrote it

[JamesTC]

Ban bear arms.

[Dr Rock]

So that bit about well regulated militias, just ignore that.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gibberish anyway.

[Alberon]

The fuckers couldn't write, but it does seem clear that what they meant was that, in the absence of a standing army, a militia would need to be filled with armed civilians.

Now the US has, still, the most powerful armed forces on Earth why does that mean some redneck can run around with an assault rifle?

They love their guns and they willingly pay the price in blood every year to keep them.

[MojoJojo]

The title is confusing. The SC case is about NY's concealed carry laws.

[Martin Van Buren Stan]

The title is confusing. The SC case is about NY's concealed carry laws.

Yeah but NY has particularly prohibitive gun laws, so the judgement their could effect other similar states too I think

[Zetetic]

The fuckers couldn't write, but it does seem clear that what they meant was that, in the absence of a standing army, a militia would need to be filled with armed civilians.

Now the US has, still, the most powerful armed forces on Earth why does that mean some redneck can run around with an assault rifle?

The immense power of the federal government for violence is an argument for states and citizens to have more of the same power, from a certain perspective.

(I don't think it's a very good argument, but I don't think "what, you're going to take on B2 with your assault rifle 15?!" is a great counterargument either.)

[Zetetic]

The title is confusing. The SC case is about NY's concealed carry laws.

Yeah but NY has particularly prohibitive gun laws, so the judgement their could effect other similar states too I think

The "concealed carry" aspect is weird in its own right though - not just that you can't be denied a gun (well, except if you've been convicted of the wrong thing, detained for being mental in the wrong way, or determined to be from the wrong place) but that you must be allowed to hide it on yourself.

I wonder if Thomas discussed that bit of it, but I'm not sure I can bring myself to find out.

[The Mollusk]

I wonder how many pro-guns Americans have completely changed their minds on gun rights after someone they care about was killed by one? Probably not many.

[Replies From View]

Great timing on this. Gee, I don't even know what to say. Enjoy your "freedom", dead people.

have we learned nothing from the red dwarf episode 'meltdown'

[Replies From View]

This is so depressing.  Maybe US public opinion is changing though and it's only a matter of time before this nonsense is ripped up.  We can hope.

[Blumf]

The title is confusing. The SC case is about NY's concealed carry laws.

It's actually congealed carry. The SC had been watching some old Cronenberg films and were worried about the "new flesh" and bio-ports.

[MojoJojo]

I was listening to a podcast yesterday and they were talking about how concealed carry licenses - the idea you should be able to carry a weapon concealed is you get a license - was seen as a pretty fringe position in the 90s. Then a diner got shot up, and a woman in the diner had left her gun in her car because she didn't want to be brandishing it. She then campaigned/became NRA front person for concealed carry.
(sorry, I should really find a link but my google is failing me).

Also, even before the black panthers, concealed carry was very much aimed at black people.

[Sebastian Cobb]

The "concealed carry" aspect is weird in its own right though - not just that you can't be denied a gun (well, except if you've been convicted of the wrong thing, detained for being mental in the wrong way, or determined to be from the wrong place) but that you must be allowed to hide it on yourself.

I wonder if Thomas discussed that bit of it, but I'm not sure I can bring myself to find out.

I've heard in concealed carry it can be pretty easy to get done (if seen) for exposing a weapon, for instance if you stretched to reach something and your shirt rode up, but in some places even the outline under your shirt can be considered exposing.

I'm not sure which is worse really, people open carrying which will intimidate and have an effect on everyone they interact with, or the fact that there's a schrodinger thing going on with everyone you meet in places with concealed carry.

[Martin Van Buren Stan]

I was listening to a podcast yesterday and they were talking about how concealed carry licenses - the idea you should be able to carry a weapon concealed is you get a license - was seen as a pretty fringe position in the 90s. Then a diner got shot up, and a woman in the diner had left her gun in her car because she didn't want to be brandishing it. She then campaigned/became NRA front person for concealed carry.
(sorry, I should really find a link but my google is failing me).

Also, even before the black panthers, concealed carry was very much aimed at black people.

About half a dozen states have permitless conceal carry too