Supreme Court rules in favor of gun owners/2A - concealed carry

This is the approach they will probably take. Try to get enough locations deemed sensitive that you can’t actually go anywhere with it. Subways will likely be #1, any place that sells alcohol (you can’t go to the diner or grocery store), any public park. Knowing NY, they will go overboard with something like “school bus stops” (which is every other intersection in the state).

Other thing will be to allow stores to post “no guns” signs and make carrying anywhere with one of these signs the same as not having a permit at all. These signs are common in some very permissive states. Some have the force of law, others do not.

I wouldn’t bet a MILLION DOLLARS that the raskal doesn’t live in a LUXURY townHOME :grin:

1 Like

They generally don’t build them within 1000ft of a school so you might actually be right…

1 Like

Yeah, at the end of the day I think it’s difficult/impossible for people to remove their personal bias/perspective from the decisions they make.

Ginsburg and Scalia were lauded as great thinkers and justices who had strong, principled opinions, but at the end of the day they were on opposite sides of the political spectrum and cast opinions accordingly.


F******* disingenuous. The headline implication is states = most states. The truth is there’s maybe 5 states. Maybe.

You expect more from the nyt?

Not really. And f**** Biden. Libs appear to view the Supreme Court as the “do what I want” branch of government. Emphasis mine

Following the Supreme Court ruling released Thursday that a New York gun-control law that required citizens to show “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry license is in violation of the Constitution, the Department of Justice took the rare step of issuing a statement on the decision.

“We respectfully disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the Second Amendment forbids New York’s reasonable requirement that individuals seeking to carry a concealed handgun must show that they need to do so for self-defense. The Department of Justice remains committed to saving innocent lives by enforcing and defending federal firearms laws, partnering with state, local and tribal authorities and using all legally available tools to tackle the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.”

The DOJ typically does not issue statements that disagreeing with Supreme Court rulings, has no lawful basis or precedent for issuing statements in opposition to Supreme Court rulings, and has no ability in law to challenge constitutional rulings.

I wrote that too soon. the opinion specifically says you cant label the entire island a sensitive place

re: guns not allowed. Thats everywhere, including the most liberal gun law states. every business has the right to determine if they allow guns on premises. on the other hand, even the most restrictive states can go the opposite way.

fucking paywall - dont ever link a article from the NYT


I would have gone to raich for an example of that. Declining to overturn Ramirez didn’t seem that political to me.

More opinions due out today. Current situation

In regards to the DOJ’s statement

DOJ does not issue statements like these disagreeing with Supreme Court rulings. It doesn’t happen. It has no lawful basis.

This can only be seen as a direct threat against the judiciary by Stasi agents.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 24, 2022

1 Like

When they start violating the sanctity of the Supreme Court, it makes you wonder if they could even fix an election someday.

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 3, 2022