Daily Signal: The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a case challenging New York City’s prohibition on transporting licensed handguns within city limits to locations other than shooting ranges.
The petitioners are challenging city regulations that almost entirely forbid residents from removing lawfully owned handguns from their homes.
This is the first significant Second Amendment case the justices will hear since ruling that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, and that this right applies against the states as well as the federal government, in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.
In the intervening years, the lower courts have struggled with the contours of the Second Amendment as state and local governments have attempted to regulate away the newly protected right. MORE
“In the intervening years, the lower courts have struggled with the contours of the Second Amendment..”
The US Constitution is very clear unless you’re a lawyer apparently.
Are you clinging tightly to my buttocks?
Which will likely result in a 150+ page opinion that takes us on a stroll of American Jurisprudence through more than two hundred years of folderol.
The two operative concepts are “shall not” and “infringe”. Those two were bound together in an enumerated list of limitations on government. It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp.
FAKE NEWS filter ON:
More proof in plain sight that Pelosi is hiding RBG.
They bee Busy and her hard work from home shouldn’t be interuptus.
@Lowell ~ Egg Zack Lee … my ‘go-to’ response to anyone arguing against the 2nd Amendment is, “exactly what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”
Chief Justice Powdered Toast Man is looking a little jaundiced lately.
Get back to me when they pass a law that lawless people will obey.
I have the same amount of trust and faith in the Supreme Court as I do the equal justice enforced by the DOJ and the professional non-partisan investigations of the FBI.
The Constitution is plainly and simply stated with purpose.
Does the Constitution mean what it says or what the supreme court says it means?
To stop drunk drivers, from killing sober drivers, just outlaw sober drivers from driving!
THAT’S how, ‘gun control,’ works. 🙄
Infringe? Isn’t that what you do to make the Flag all holiday and festive looking?
Will they dig Ginsberg up to here this case?
I’ll bet Gunny Ermy is standing by to bitch slap the old skank when she finally does officially does croak…unfortunately he may have a long wait since she’s more than likely to be headed south when she does!
Would help if Chief Justice Roberts went on national TV and explained how the left is blackmailing him. Then he’d be free to side with true patriots.
“…the justices will hear…”
should be: 8 justices will hear and 1 justice will have it read to them…
This absentee voting arrangement doesn’t work. If a senator has to be present to vote, what enables justices to be absent and vote? Specifically.
If rbg votes absentia and the vote is 5-4 it stands. If they come to their senses and have her not be able to vote, and the vote is then 4-4, the lower court ruling stands. That is a loss, too. They should just get out their dictionaries and realize just what ‘shall not infringe’ means. Not the narrative of the day, but the language of the amendment, as written. My goodness, in our world, lawyers successfully argue that there are more than 2 genders and will sue over inappropriate pronoun use.
An unloaded gun is just a paper weight, it should be able to be transported anywhere.
Our justice system is a severely impaired.
I can’t say it any better than Lowell did.
Lowell, you win.
The game with RBG is simple: Put her on life support until early 2020, at which time when she is “officially” dead, the dems will demand the Republicans follow the “Gorsuch rule”, and wait until 2021 when the “new” president takes office, so he/she can appoint the new justice. Will Mitch the Turtle hold fast?
If we can save just one life this way then it is all worth it.
No I wasn’t talking about the wall!
I meant gun control!
I could be wrong, but I think this case involved a marine veteran that brought a concealed weapon to the Trade Center site. That might have not been the best thing to do BUT certainly within her God given right to be able to defend herself AT ANY TIME.
It was NYC big LIB news locally at the time.
https://nypost.com/2015/08/03/texas-tourist-thought-it-was-ok-to-pack-heat-at-the-911-memorial/
Toby brings out some great points. But I have to wonder.
What if RNG is near death and her now her being gone changes the vote. By the time this gets to the SCOTUS she could well be worm dirt. The makeup of the court to me is too unpredictable at this time with Roberts being a pawn to his owners.
And how many libtards have offer organs to keep RNG alive.
Can you vote without being there? Hearing oral arguments? Is she on life support?
So many questions, so many lies.
And after the High & Might Supremes who
live behind WALLS with ARMED MEN have delivered
their esteemed opinion the criminals/illegal gang
bangers will still have MANY GUNS.