https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728038)

and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J.,

filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in

which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion.

BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN,

JJ., joined.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728061)

The dangers posed by firearms can take many forms.

Newspapers report mass shootings occurring at an entertainment district in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (3 dead

and 11 injured); an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas (21

dead); a supermarket in Buffalo, New York (10 dead and 3

injured); a series of spas in Atlanta, Georgia (8 dead); a busy

street in an entertainment district of Dayton, Ohio (9 dead

and 17 injured); a nightclub in Orlando, Florida (50 dead

and 53 injured); a church in Charleston, South Carolina (9

dead); a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado (12 dead and 50

injured); an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut (26

dead); and many, many more. See, e.g., R. Todt, 3 Dead, 11

Wounded in Philadelphia Shooting on Busy Street, Washington Post, June 5, 2022; A. Hernández, J. Slater, D. Barrett, & S. Foster-Frau, At Least 19 Children, 2 Teachers

Killed at Texas Elementary School, Washington Post, May

25, 2022; A. Joly, J. Slater, D. Barrett, & A. Hernandez, 10

Killed in Racially Motivated Shooting at Buffalo Grocery

Store, Washington Post, May 14, 2022; C. McWhirter & V.

Bauerlein, Atlanta-Area Shootings at Spas Leave Eight

Dead, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17, 2021; A. Hassan, Dayton Gunman Shot 26 People in 32 Seconds, Police Timeline

Reveals, N. Y. Times, Aug. 13, 2019; L. Alvarez & R. PérezPeña, Orlando Gunman Attacks Gay Nightclub, Leaving 50

Dead, N. Y. Times, June 12, 2016; J. Horowitz, N. Corasaniti, & A. Southall, Nine Killed in Shooting at Black Church

in Charleston, N. Y. Times, June 17, 2015; R. Lin, Gunman

Kills 12 at ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Screening in Colorado, L. A.

Times, July 20, 2012; J. Barron, Nation Reels After Gunman Massacres 20 Children at School in Connecticut, N. Y.

Times, Dec. 14, 2012. Since the start of this year alone

(2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings—an average of more than one per day. Gun Violence

Archive; see also Gun Violence Archive, General Methodology, https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology (defining mass shootings to include incidents in which at least

four victims are shot, not including the shooter).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728073)

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see

what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of

the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8

(opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent

think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have

occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent

think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting

be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun

outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the

fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list

took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this

case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns

to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think

that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be

stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot

lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why

these statistics are relevant to the question presented in

this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun

in a domestic dispute occur outside the home

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728090)

“libs?”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728127)

It's really distressing to know that even Breyer is just an NPC who will spout Democratic taking points whenever a gun is mentioned

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728158)

XO Alito with the one shot kill

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728191)

That little line was very disingenuous, poorly reasoned, infantile even, quite beneath someone like Alito, and I'd like to think it didn't come from Alito but from some clerk.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728474)

so Alito is citing a thing that happened that these gun laws were designed to MITIGATE.

How much have these laws mitigated?

Alito is just slam dunking this wordplay.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728657)

Show, please..

Thank

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728829)

dat too much unsubstantiated mental masterbation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44732372)

thanks for nuancing Alito's clear and devastating point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728898)

- laughably weak reasoning? Yep.

- quintessentially boomer moderate-ism while holding a fundamentally shitlib position? OH yeah!

- pretentious dithering about civility while being pwned? Absolutely.

- mention of "the alt-right" and generally out-of-touch attempts to characterize his betters (i.e. those who disagree)? THAT'S A BINGO!

You fucking retard lmfao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44729950)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728128)

you know they will. it's been 12 years since mcdonald and hawaii judges and legislatures openly violated it with this may carry nonsense. you know they are going to find a way to essentially ban carrying guns everywhere a thing and it'll take another decade for that to get challenged. and who knows what the court will look like then?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728673)

Exhibit two is the dissent filed in Heller by JUSTICE

BREYER, the author of today’s dissent. At issue in Heller

was an ordinance that made it impossible for any District

of Columbia resident to keep a handgun in the home for

self-defense. See 554 U. S., at 574–575. Even the respondent, who carried a gun on the job while protecting federal

facilities, did not qualify. Id., at 575–576. The District of

Columbia law was an extreme outlier; only a few other jurisdictions in the entire country had similar laws. Nevertheless, JUSTICE BREYER’s dissent, while accepting for the

sake of argument that the Second Amendment protects the

right to keep a handgun in the home, concluded, based on

essentially the same test that today’s dissent defends, that

the District’s complete ban was constitutional. See id., at

689, 722 (under “an interest-balancing inquiry. . .” the dissent would “conclude that the District’s measure is a proportionate, not a disproportionate, response to the compelling concerns that led the District to adopt it”).

Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see

fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the

dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds

to do just that. See post, at 25–28.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728132)

BU BU BUT where do we draw the line on postratification practice affecting the original meaning of the Constitution????

I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to

highlight two methodological points that the Court does not

resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine

the manner and circumstances in which postratification

practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. See ante, at 24–29. Scholars have proposed competing

and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. See, e.g., Nelson, Originalism and Interpretive Conventions, 70 U. Chi.

L. Rev. 519 (2003); McConnell, Time, Institutions, and Interpretation, 95 B. U. L. Rev. 1745 (2015). The limits on

the permissible use of history may vary between these

frameworks (and between different articulations of each

one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original

public meaning? Cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316,

401 (1819) (citing practice “introduced at a very early period

of our history”). What form must practice take to carry

weight in constitutional analysis? See Myers v. United

States, 272 U. S. 52, 175 (1926) (citing a “legislative exposition of the Constitution . . . acquiesced in for a long term of

years”). And may practice settle the meaning of individual

rights as well as structural provisions? See Baude, Constitutional Liquidation, 71 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 49–51 (2019) (canvassing arguments). The historical inquiry presented in

this case does not require us to answer such questions,

which might make a difference in another case. See ante,

at 17–19.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728155)

CA law is weird: if you have a CCL from your county of residence you can CC anywhere in CA. so (not to be a Doobs) are you near Sacto, Solano, or San Joaquin?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728426)

people from rural counties in NY are given full carry permits in less than a week and can carry their firearm without restriction in nassau, suffolk, westchester counties.

people in said downstate counties need to wait 2+ years, provide multiple notarized good character references, pay a shitload of money, etc just to get a bullshit "sportsman" permit with significant restrictions on it. break the nonsense rules or piss off a cop? they'll cancel your permit, take all of your legally owned guns (including long guns), and you'll never be able to own a firearm again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44737566)

“… The Sec- ond Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.”

That’s it.

Fuck your Uvalde, Buffalo, Columbine points.

It’s all subsumed under the “law of the land”.

Amend the constitution if you want it changed. Fucking niggers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728374)

Making me want to go YLS OR HLS and “LIVE A LIFE OF THE MIND”

That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause require- ment as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no histor- ical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected gener- ally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728437)

Amend the constitution. See if you can get these faggotry post modern ideals passed. Should be easy to, after all they lead to prosperity and happiness.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728596)

thanks champ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728689)

"heh, well actually you weren't even a person in 1789"

[ignores the fact that the constitution was subsequently amended to grant black people legal personhood]

[ignores the fact that there have been no amendments to the constitution altering gun rights]

[ignores the fact that this argument is inherently racist, so because thomas may not have had the same rights as whites in 1789 that means that he isn't qualified to decide this issue? or that it's somehow contradictory for him to interpret history accurately?]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728723)

and all your drooling about later amendments kind of exposes that originalism is a theory for 85 IQ waterheads

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728730)

there has been no change to the constitution regarding the right to bear arms since 1789. thus, the law should be interpreted based on what people understood it to mean when it was written. if the people want to change the law, the proper way to do so is via democracy, not by relying on unelected judges to make it up.

not so difficult to understand, but i'm sure you'll strawman the heck out of it, good buddy. the sad thing is that i believe you're smart enough to understand this but are just being intellectually dishonest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728765)

plus, y'know, his wife would have been hanged in 1789 for sedition (not that he could have married her anyway)

also, tricky how under this ruling there was no big deal about the glowie taking a nighttime stroll through kav's neighborhood with a handgun

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728724)

scalia, thomas, et al. have repeatedly, repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of originalism isn't in deference to the wisdom of those that crafted the law. it's that the only sensible way to interpret the law is to judge what people understood the law to mean when it was written. if the law is bad, it's the legislature's job to change it. not the court's.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728744)

Chill, humble guy. I met him once in law school and sat next to him at a two hour luncheon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728758)

Good. The sooner we completely do away with the fiction that we have "rule of law" in this country and normies realize what's really going on (power is power and all that matters is grabbing and holding onto power by any means because otherwise your enemies will grab it and use it against you), the better. LFG.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44728843)

https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1539986858716823553

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44729097)

The 9th Circuit is already measuring their trucks to see whether they'll fit through.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44729943)

Subtle dig at original **public** meaning originalism?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5137142&forum_id=2#44730547)