I have zero context for this. Can you please include links with these kinds of statements so the rest of us an have some idea of what you're trying to talk about?
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/new-york-gun-law-supreme-court-decision/index.html Supreme Court ruling that was just announced.
SCOTUS dropped a decision on New York's concealed carry statute, and the language Thomas uses is very permissive. I expect this decision to be used as precedent to strike down almost any gun control law it comes across.
What was the law? Ugh, Jesus CNN sucks. I don't need to hear the mayor of NYC whining and the CEO of the NRA gloating, what the fuck was the decision, what was the law and what was said in the ruling? Fuck punditry. Christ.
They’re making the case for “shall issue,” which makes sense if there are other forthcoming gun control measures.
I wonder when they’re actually going to read the rest of the second amendment and require gun owners to register with their state militias?
The specific ruling was about a may/shall issue case, but Thomas's decision pretty clearly stakes out a "you have the right to have a gun anywhere, anytime" position that will be used by lower courts in other cases.
That would be part of a discussion on which definition of “regulated” is being applied to the original text.
Can't have women taken out of their upcoming roles as handmaidens for something as pesky as serving in the military.
Not read through it don’t know if they added strict scrutiny to gun laws. That was the hope of gun rights activists. These ‘may’ vs ‘shall’ issue laws are bullshit and have been used to just deny permits at the whims of the local authorities political leanings. Last I heard my brother’s best friend from high school had been waiting 3 years for approval in Los Angeles County and he’s a DA that prosecutes cartel gang members. Another one of those “we aren’t banning guns we’re just limiting your practical use of them, but again not an outright ban.” This ruling sees through that nonsense.
Here in NY our county went from "may issue" to "shall issue" several years ago, which I was greatly in favor of long before they did it. When I first applied for what they call, "unrestricted" here, I was denied. The only reason given was that the judge who signed off on them felt no one other than police officers should be able to carry a handgun. That's it, tough shit. So that meant that unless I was using a handgun to hunt or was on my way to or from the range, it had to remain on my premises. And when on my way to or from those activities, it had to be locked in the car if I stopped to eat or use a rest room. Years later I wrote a letter to the judge who replaced him and made my case: In my line of work I had been threatened ( same as the first time I applies for unrestricted ) and furthermore, I wrote my handgun was safest on my hip, not locked in a car while I'm in a diner on the way home from the range. The judge agreed, and issued the unrestricted. About a year later, he and the Sheriff did away with the "may issue" and all pistol permits are issued unrestricted. We have an increase in gun violence in the community, same as anywhere. So far none of the police reports indicate the perps had a permit to own the guns. Because, ya know, criminals don't bother with such things. This is a lot of pearl clutching and political grandstanding by our governor and others, nothing more.
Why do gun owners keep saying, "criminals don't care about laws" when the goal of most gun regulations is to reduce the number of guns in circulation? It doesn't matter that criminals don't care about laws. We already know they can get a gun if they really wanted to. The problem is that every gun with a serial number was a legitimate purchase at some point. Limiting gun purchases, regardless of who purchases them, reduces the opportunity that a gun ends up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have them. I mean, we have penalties in place to help prevent people without licenses drive a car. Do people drive with suspended licenses? All the time. That doesn't mean the vast majority of drivers are unlicensed. Licenses ensure that every licensed driver at least knows their way around the act of driving, and how cars behave. Perhaps requiring gun owners to have licenses to own and operate a gun would stop idiot 18 year olds from walking into a gun store to buy something that was specifically engineered to end as many lives as possible. If I've learned anything during my years in IT, it's that people are generally lazy, stupid, and will take the path of least resistance every time. I guarantee that if there were some kind of roadblock to gun ownership, you'd see less mass shootings, less suicides, and the number one thing killing kids wouldn't be guns. I'm sure that these two events are completely and utterly unrelated.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/turkey-supports-finland-sweden-joining-nato-1.6504434 Turkey is agreeing to back Finland and Sweden joining NATO
At this rate, Putin deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.... except for all the missile attacks and shit. Other than that, he's uniting the rest of the world like nothing we've ever seen... even TURKEY is backing up shit, thinking "wow, they don't hate us anywhere near as much as Putin right now... maybe they'll forget about those people we assassinated..."