New York’s longstanding proper-cause requirement does not violate the Second Amendment.
A. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that right is not absolute. For centuries, legislatures in England, the colonies, and the States have protected public safety by adopting reasonable regulations governing who may possess weapons, which weapons they may possess, where and when weapons may be carried, and how they may be manufactured, sold, and stored.
A court considering a challenge to an arms regulation should begin with text, history, and tradition. This Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), instructs that those sources may definitively validate or invalidate the challenged law: The Court struck down a uniquely restrictive law banning possession of handguns in the home, but emphasized that the Second Amendment permits a wide range of measures that are fairly supported by our Nation’s tradition of gun regulation.
Text, history, and tradition will not conclusively determine the validity of some laws—especially new measures adopted to address new conditions. In such cases, courts should apply the judicial method reflected in the relevant history and tradition by asking whether the challenged law is a reasonable regulation—or, to put it in modern terms, whether the law survives intermediate scrutiny.
Federal law illustrates the types of regulations that legislatures may constitutionally adopt. Congress has disarmed felons and others who may be dangerous or irresponsible. It has forbidden the carrying of arms in sensitive places, such as courthouses and school zones. And it has extensively regulated commerce in arms. All those regulations pass constitutional muster.
B. New York’s proper-cause requirement is likewise constitutional. Throughout the Nation’s history, legislatures have adopted regulations to address the distinctive risks posed by the public carrying of concealed or concealable arms. New York’s law—which is itself a century old—fits squarely within that long tradition. And even if that tradition left any doubt, New York’s proper-cause requirement would also satisfy intermediate scrutiny. It serves public-safety interests of the highest order. It applies only to the carrying of arms in public. It covers handguns, but not most rifles and shotguns. And instead of prohibiting the carrying of handguns entirely, it allows those who need to carry them for self-defense to do so.
— Amicus Brief filed by the United States in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen
Of course the Fascists want to disarm as many folks as possible.
dacian will never lose his virginity unless his female victims are defenseless.
Which Dacian? The antifa member or the Fudd?
“Which Dacian?”
The fvckwit with the yellow avatar, who’s just a re-incarnation of ‘vlad’ from years back…
Yeah I don’t think Haz was ever “vlad”.
Everything else checks out.
One and the same. He pretends to be a fudd in an attempt to dissuade people from buying effective weapons.
Perhaps he has been sniffing the Sweets 7.62 solvent
I hope that scotus doesn’t look at this case and make some teeny tiny extremely narrowly tailored ruling that only applies to New York City in some extreme circumstance. We’re at the point where an entire constitutional amendment can go bye bye without amending the constitution you know the document that scotus is supposed to protect. If scotus only looks at this case extremely narrowly and allows politicians to continue to strip away civil rights then I dare say the government we have is illegitimate. If one civil right can be pecked away until it’s gone then they all can and we’re in a police state with no freedom at all.
“I hope that scotus doesn’t look at this case and make some teeny tiny extremely narrowly tailored ruling that only applies to New York City in some extreme circumstance.”
Yeah, that’s what I fear is gonna happen.
The oral arguments are coming up in a few weeks. Normally, court watchers could gauge how the case was going by the questions the justices would ask and the responses.
We thought we had that nailed *cold* with the NY Pistol transport outside NYC case the last time around, and they wimped out by mooting it.
We have an extra justice this time around, but I fear they will fuck us over again.
Please surprise us, SCotUS, and let St. Thomas write the decision… 🙂
Unfortunately they’re taking a page from FDR – the threat of packing SCOTUS has enough of the Justices cowed that they’re willing to sell out the Constitution in the hopes that it will allow them to retain a degree of power. What they don’t realize is that appeasement never works. Chief Justice John Roberts is the Neville Chamberlain of our era.
SCOTUS is(was?) the last bulwark for peaceful redress of wrongs and upholding the Constitution. The last shred of legitimacy cloaking our decaying government.
They can’t pack the court without nuking the filibuster first, and several Dem Senators said they won’t vote for it. Ruling on a gun case isn’t going to push the Dems into such a dangerous precedent — if anything it’d be a Roe reversal coming from the Dobbs case out of Mississippi.
The dems have already used up their political capital with their blatant power grabs and incompetent governing. I don’t think they can get anything significant passed before the 22 midterms without Republican support. Too bad there are always a few Republicans willing to go along for the right price, including vindictiveness.
@anymouse – I expect that Roberts has attended a number of low profile functions with various D.C. swampdwellers and hammered out terms. He remains a coward and sees to it that SCOTUS doesn’t rock the boat, the Dems don’t pack the court. This then allows certain Democrats (e.g. Manchin) to posture saying they won’t allow the filibuster to be nuked or SCOTUS to be packed.. while ensuring the Democrats more or less get their way regardless. Things will play out just like in FDR’s time, where SCOTUS bent the knee and allowed his egregiously unconstitutional New Deal and expansion of the Government and Government powers rather than be packed.
The Democrats who are posturing now will change their tunes in a heartbeat if SCOTUS grows a spine and hands down a ruling they dislike, and I suspect we’d find the Chief Justice or Clarence Thomas expired under a pillow the morning after.
@Dude I would have agreed with your point about spent political capital 20 years ago. 2022 will be the watershed moment simply because it’s where the Democrats either have to take massive political losses if they allow a free and fair election.. or they will miraculously find enough votes retain complete power, perhaps even gaining seats in the Senate.
The case attacks the NYS statute for issuance of concealed carry permits, not the NYC statute and ordinances.
” All those regulations pass constitutional muster. ”
No, they do not. No, they DID NOT.
Constitutional muster hinges entirely on the question: Do they allow the government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms or not? The Second Amendment does not contain the words: except, unless, but if….
What those laws and regulations passed was a review by the Supreme Court, on third of the very same government the 2A specifically prohibits from infringing on the RKBA.
Like is a person is Irish, black, Catholic or just poor.
Of course it does. They all do.
Citing NYC history from the days of Tammany Hall, Tim Sullivan and the Sullivan Act combined with intermediate scrutiny of an enumerated Civil Right, to support more restrictions, is damn hilarious to me.
And THAT very ‘long heldtradition’ is why the Framers created the unqualified, no exceptions, “Shall NOT BE INFRINGED” part of the 2nd Amendment in the first place, you fucking Morons! They were tired of the British control of the never ending slippery slope of continuous regulations, restrictions, prohibitions, and forbidden behavior! All the while taxing the living shit out of you.
The Founders knew too well from true history that there could never be compromise on Natural Rights and Liberties. Because invariably, without doubt, they understood the immutable reality there would always be abuse when there was any form of established authority among the collective. It was simply human nature.
So the American Way of society began with throwing OUT all the overwhelming superfluous control laws that OCD control freaks always use and abuse to dominate others. And putting control of all laws under the consent of the People.
True, this early Egalitarian experiment in it’s purity barely lasted a Decade or so after the War before ‘the Curse of the Crown’ crept back into the American political arena… and finally got a choke hold on our original Freedoms today.
“…Congress has disarmed felons and others who ‘MAY’ be dangerous or irresponsible…”
Yeah, and right there, in their own rapid obssesive Compulsion to ‘disarm’ the populus Freudian slip was the cyanide pill, in plain words, for their brief argument” Not withstanding those ‘Minority Report Predictive Policing Nazi Psychos, who doubtless had an orgasm with that sentence in the brief, A person who “May” might, or could, be dangerous or irresponsible, is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME!
This is worse than the ‘LBJ disarmament agenda in ’68’ with making all ex-cons permanantly prohibited from possessing a gun. Which was one of the greatest mind fuck scams ever perpetrated on free citizens. Almost nobody figured it out until just recently. What a super way to disarm the people without house to house seizures. Just make anybody who is guilty of a crime prohibited, and then make enough of all kinds of behavior and process laws that guarantee that most people going to violate at some point in normal free human behavior, and Voila! Everyone is a felon and must turn in their guns or be punished!
And who are the ‘others’ in their brief statement? Mentally Ill? the Poor, Libertarians, people of color, Rich old White men? “MAYbe” They all ‘might’ become dangerous or irresponsible at some point in their lives? But by whose authority is that even determined? How can it even BE seriously determined? How can this even be considered outside of an insane asylum?
Last I checked these were NOT (yet) criminal behaviors and could therefore Not be breaking any laws? So how the Feckless Fuck can you “Infringe upon an absolute right by Disarming someone just because a person “MAY” be dangerous at some time in the future, but also may…Not? This is why they say somebody ‘commits’ a crime. And THEN is arrested and charged. And THEN punished if proven guilty? Has the Government just proven that they’ve gone completely MAD in the commie power-lust?!
Don’t answer that out loud. Otherwise you ‘May’ be dangerous or irresponsible’ and Congress will disarm you. Your smartphone will make the determination and automatically notify the authorities,. You will be home invaded on a no-knock warrant, your assets seized, shot if you go for your gun in self-defense because they just shot your dog, and aheld without bond because you bought a camper recently so you ‘might’ be a flight risk!
Yes! Absolutely,
Now, now. . . up until 1865, some 89 years after the founding, it was perfectly OK to own other people, which made it a long-standing tradition in the United States as well as a well-established legal precedent, which OBviously makes it OK for a law that violates an actual provision of the Bill of Rights to be absolutely OK because the law has been on the books for a long time which makes it OK to keep it there, and besides Public Safety and The Greater Good and Distinctive Risks because legislatures know best about such things so what’s an outdated, anachronistic Amendment written by old, dead rich white slave-owning males got to do with it?
Did I miss anything?
I wouldn’t even wipe my butt with the paper that’s written on. Don’t want to risk contracting some horrible disease.
RE: “Throughout the Nation’s history, legislatures have adopted regulations to address the distinctive risks posed by the public carrying of concealed or concealable arms. New York’s law—which is itself a century old—fits squarely within that long tradition.”
Why shucks…It’s just a democRat Party Jim Crow Gun Control Family Tradition…C’Mon Man.
“It covers handguns, but not most rifles and shotguns. And instead of prohibiting the carrying of handguns entirely, it allows those who need to carry them for self-defense to do so.”
Who decides who NEEDS to do so? Also this makes it sound like if I wanted to walk through the streets of New York City with my shotgun or rifle nobody would have a problem with it? Sure, I believe that.
Rights are not about who needs to do something. It’s because I want to and you are powerless to say I can’t. Pretty sure that’s the entire meaning of shall not be infringed.
The law has an exception for imminent threats, supposedly to protect people if they have to run out of a building to protect someone or if they are being stalked outside the home and shot their attacker without holding a permit, perhaps they will avoid jail time, perhaps not.
In an event that exception is meaningless, as the mercy of the courts and prosecutors decide if you go to jail for defending yourself and others, without holding a city or state issued permit to exercise your God given Natural Rights.
If you walk through the streets of NY with a shotgun or rifle, NYPD will kill you… Firing some 200+ rounds just to be sure, also hitting a pregnant mother, a bride on way to a wedding, a couple of school children, a blind man, a minority business owner, several dogs, and an endangered owl. But at least all threats will be neutralized.
All of them then to be tallied as “victims of gun violence”.
There are two unstated issues with that formulation. First, and since we are dealing only with carry outside the home, by the time one is in imminent danger, it is too late to go home and fetch one’s firearm. Second, carry permits are issued only to those who, in the infinite wisdom of the issuing agency, are deemed to have demonstrated that there is sufficient proof of a significant risk of injury or death that cannot be dealt with by the police. (This is the same formulation of good cause under California law that is variably interpreted by the various county sheriffs and city police chiefs). Persons at risk of domestic violence DO NOT demonstrate a sufficient need, because the police and a TRO is a sufficient defense to such risks. (Why anyone believes that a TRO is a bullet proof piece of paper in this day and age completely escapes me.)
Also, the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It’s not the Bill of Needs.
The level of NEED is decided by how much cash is in the brown paper bag.
The brief discusses the history of gun control to mitigate the risks to society posed by concealed weapons but fails to mention the non-existent risk posed by law abiding citizens. How often to sanctioned CCW owners murder people?
How can the courts look at history to make a decision and ignore the long history of legal guns owned and carried by principled citizens not being a threat at all?
How often do unsanctioned CCW owners murder people?
I would agree that many people do not CCW because it is against the law, but I am sure that there a millions of people that have/will carry illegally. It isn’t like they are looking for trouble, but are afraid of a situation or a specific person they may interact with. Just carrying the store reciepts to the bank is a big deal. Business owners are singled out for this reason and are robbed often for the day’s reciepts. $300 is enough that someone will use strong arm robbery or even a firearm to take it from you. Sadly, that $300 would be a loss(not even keeping the door’s open), but losing it just makes it worse. A store owner can’t legally protect himself.
An interesting fact.
FBI stats show LTC/CHL licensed US Citizens are MORE law abiding then LEOs.
Cato,
Better yet, why elevate tradition above what is inherently right or wrong?
If someone had challenged slavery two years before our nation’s Civil War, would the U.S. Supreme Court have been right to uphold slavery because it was a 150 year-old tradition at that time?
This is yet another example of people who vomit words–any words they deem necessary–in a desperate attempt to win you over to their side regardless of whether or not their position is inherently wrong.
Note that a scumbag womanizer uses the very same tactic–saying whatever he thinks will get a women into bed with him.
And the traditional Democrats really want to reestablish slavery. Especially for the “special property rights”.
This is true. In presenting a “blood in the streets” and “more guns means more gun crime” (familiar old saws) the brief lumps all law abiding people into the same category as criminals, suggesting that if people have guns on them, a minor altercation will turn into a shoot out. Of course, the brief fails to note that this has not happened in states that no longer require permits or are “shall issue.”
The brief also, and disingenuously, argues that “many” states have “good cause” requirements. It lists six besides NY. (Included are California, Hawaii (which is “no issue” in the last 20+ years), New Jersey, Massachusetts (which I don’t think is correct, but not sure), Rhode Island, and Connecticut. (As I recall). But it fails to note that “may issue” jurisdictions are a small minority.
Ralph can clue us in on Mass, but as I understand it, local chiefs of police outside of Boston are for all practical purposes, shall-issue, and the permit is valid in Boston proper.
So, live outside the city, and commute and carry…
“The brief also, and disingenuously, argues that “many” states have “good cause” requirements.”
LKB seemed pessimistic by the way the Court re-worded the Question being asked, do you see that action as a foreshadowing of a decision we won’t like?
That is the big unknown, particularly after reading Scalia’s Heller opinion citing those state cases that upheld concealed carry restrictions as long as open carry was allowed. It is quite conceivable that the decision will narrowly address concealed carry leaving the issue of the existence of a right to open carry to another day.Personally, I don’t think the court should narrowly focus on one without considering the entire context to include open carry restrictions. California has banned open carry leaving only “may issue” concealed carry that the Ninth has said is a privilege not a right. With an urban open carry ban and/or a gun free school zones act restriction, open carry has been essentially banned even without an express open carry ban (the latter only allow carry within 1000′ of a school with a CCW). Unless the Supreme Court addresses the context, the right to bear arms outside the home in any urban area could easily disappear. (As an aside, the Ninth has already concluded that there is no right to bear arms outside the home. A petition for cert is pending and is currently set for consideration on the long calendar next Monday.)
Of course they did.
Given the way this administration has treated the Supreme Court this far, I have some small hope the court will give the brief considerable weight. In the opposite direction.
So…let me get this straight…Biden team is arguing that infringing on an individual’s ability to carry arms is in line with the Constitution’s clear mandate not to infringe?
Clown world.
“Clown world.”
And ‘Chuckles the Clown’ will be reading off the teleprompter at the UN shortly…
New York is a fine example of the purpose and the means to enact gun control. A review of the history of the laws and who enacted them and why, leads to the conclusion that they are 100% unconstitutional as written and as applied.
Hollywood of all places gives us a mostly honest window into the world of New York gun control. Watching crime shows in the 1970’s, I was amazed that a street thug could walk into a dry cleaner and demand $300 a week in protection money, otherwise something bad might happen, like a fire or maybe to their children, as they walk home from school. As a kid, I asked my Dad, a Los Angeles County Sheriff and former New Jersey Transit Policeman, why the Dry Cleaner just doesn’t shoot the guy making threats and then call the Police?
After my Dad stopped laughing, he explained that the Mafia, The Police and Politicians worked in partnership to control the city for their own profit. As a kid in California, this was almost like Science Fiction. “But what about the people that live there?”, “Why don’t they vote in different leaders?” My poor Dad then had to talk about rigged elections, political machines, etc. and explained this was a big reason he and my Mom left New York/New Jersey and moved to Southern California in the 1960’s to raise their young family.
True Political Power comes from controlling the “Legitimate” Levers of Power and the Underworld Levers of Power. Step out of line and both forces will come together to crush you. If you are a Celebrity, a Billionaire or a Political Ally, laws and regulations will be bent, ignored and twisted to keep them from impeding your liberty. The “Little” People don’t matter, they are simply Serfs who live to do the masters bidding.
Welcome to New York.
Mauser6836,
Excellent commentary.
Sad note: it sure looks like the Democrat Party is doing their absolute damnedest to extend the New York City mafia-police-politician model of exploitation to the entire United States of America.
“A court considering a challenge to an arms regulation should begin with text, history, and tradition.”
They are shitting bricks worried about “text, history, and tradition” coming to bite them in the ass.
Good… 🙂
If Biden read this brief from the podium:
“New York’s longstanding proper-cause requirement does not violate the Second Amendment. Because, well just because. Dammit, I am the President, you know. Doesn’t that mean anything to you people? What’s that? Oops, I did it again. Thank you, and I’m not allowed to take any questions.”
He wouldn’t even get to the claptrap arguments.
I suppose some legal restrictions on access to abortion would also be constitutional, like have to show reasonable need for an abortion and letting a bureaucrat be the judge of the validity of your claimed need. What’s reasonable for guns is surely reasonable for forceps.
Too bad the libs are never consistent on anything because they have zero principles, and stand for nothing other than increasing their own power and punishing their political rivals.
Yep. The Republicans are constantly compromising their principles, the Democrats never had any to start with. Eventually it will all burn down, so keep your powder dry.
The old joke. If it wasn’t for double standards they wouldn’t have any.
The Constitution does not an 11th amendment that deals with Abortion rights so it is up to the individual states to either allow it or not allow it. If Roe v Wade is thrown out then it will be up to the states to determine what their laws will be.
The right to keep and bear arms on the other hand is guaranteed in the Constitution so the courts do have an obligation to make sure it is not infringed.
Tell that to the brain dead liberals who think the right to kill your baby is the most sacrosanct of all human rights and the whole purpose of the Constitution itself.
The courts have an obligation to decide on whether a restriction equals an infringment. It does in my eyes and in your eyes, but not necessarily in the court’s eyes.
Here’s the good news though. It takes 4 SC Justices to hear a case. Previously, there weren’t 4 Justices who were confident they’d win and that’s why the SC took so few cases. Now with Ginsberg gone, suddenly there ARE 4 Justices who are confident they’ll win. Maybe there’s a squishy Justice or two on the court, but the right side of history only needs to convince one.
The bunch that wants to decide whether you can have the freedom to carry a concealed weapon for self defense is the same bunch who said nothing about Jim Crow Gun Control joe leaving stockpiles of US Munitions for taliban terrorists is the same bunch acting concerned about horse mounted patrol trying to protect US Borders from an invasion of illegal aliens.
The same bunch in the media says nothing about citizens of Afghanistan being raped and butchered daily by taliban terrorists all thanks to the incompetence of Jim Crow Gun Control joe et al. In other words the democRat Party and their media cohorts are putting on a show for America’s spoon fed morons.
I do appreciate the argument that the NY law is more than a century old.
How old were laws on slavery and segregation when they finally ceased to exist?
Asking fo a friend, you know…
Well said UBI. And something else not considered about gun control… most gun control has roots in segregation and Jim Crow laws. For example, North Carolina’s licensing requirements, which a democrat Governor protected with a veto… go figure right.
Honestly, Biden once said that if they don’t vote democrat, they aren’t black, but I personally can’t understand how any African American can vote democrat based on the democrat past along with the laws they continue to keep such as their gun control.
“For centuries, legislatures in England, the colonies, and the States have protected public safety by adopting reasonable regulations governing who may possess weapons… etc.”
I seem to recall we fought a revolution (with guns!) so that we could stop caring about England’s opinion on weapons, tea, taxes, or anything else. Personally, when Europeans don’t like something, I usually assume that something is awesome. See: guns, tea, and freedom.
something in the wind tells me change is a coming.
all similar cases were held and jettisoned as roberts was not a reliable 2a ally. would the court really take on the same cases it jettisoned not more than a year or two ago to make an ill decision?
Better get some safe spaces ready….I really hope the decide with strict scrutiny. it is the only thing that will rein in the states and lower courts.
The “best” that can be said about the Solicitor General’s brief is that it is well written, and that it correctly argues that there are multiple cases in state courts upholding concealed carry bans. The Supreme Court has specifically limited the question presented to the concealed carry of firearms in public, and given a long history of such bans predating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, history and tradition suggest that such limitations may survive scrutiny. On the other hand, the brief is entirely disingenuous when it suggests that the open carry of rifles and shotguns is permissible in NYS, which is true for hunters but is patently false in cities, towns, and villages, the places where the need for an exercise of self defense is most probable. The argument fails to acknowledge that a right to carry firearms to oppose an imminent threat is only meaningful in the home where firearms are present, but not when one is out and about outside the home. And it fails to acknowledge that the issuing authorities in NYS have a very narrow view of that which constitutes good cause, thus denying most citizens the right to bear arms outside the home. Its argument that this is good for public safety is simply not supported by any evidence in the record before the Court, and is contradicted by the majority of states that have either jettisoned concealed carry permits (is it 21 or 22 now?) or have gone “shall issue.” I think that there are only 8 states left that have retained a good cause requirement.
Seeing that these neo-Facist run areas of our country all have such incredibly low instances of gun/knife crimes, rapes/assaults, robberies/carjackings…… , I would say, if it ain’t broke, don’t f’ with it.
LE response times are instantaneous in all these areas too. Never takes more then a second or two for sufficient LE presence to arrive, and the LEOs are ALWAYS willing to put their lives on the line to protect ANY citizen that may be in harm’s way. Never needing to stage/co-ordinate/relay details to some higher rank/superior not currently on scene/wait for a group of liability lawyer types to green light any “use of force” (a-la Pulse Night Club)………… Right?
🤔
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait a minute……………………….. nevermind.
James, love the sarcasm.
I love how Biden conveniently compares criminals being barred from keeping weapons to a legal citizen having draconian laws placed against them. It’s comparing apples to oranges… unless he believes that all everyday people are criminals, something I wouldn’t discount actually. Because New York is may issue, that right there is an infringement of the 2nd amendment because it can block someone who is legally able to get a permit. That allows for abuses, especially with minorities. Furthermore, how can New York justify its belief that you have to show immediate need, not possible need? While there are cases where someone can show immediate need and still have time to go through the permit process, most attacks are not known until they happen. So unless someone can see the future, most will be turned away based on New York’s law, which is a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment. So the fact that Biden put pressure on SCOTUS with his amicus brief, I really hope SCOTUS throws that brief in Biden’s smug face… or better yet, takes a page out of the movie “Airheads” and wipes their collective butt with his brief and then throw it in his face. Personally, SCOTUS needs to get more ballsy in their verdicts or they might as well be packed anyways.
Man, I can’t wait till Biden is gone. It seems like time is flying now days, but his presidency is moving like a snail on glue.
The Second Amendment. ,, and then,
“For centuries legislators in England. ”
And that’s as far as I read.
Does paint a picture of our “dear” 🤢🤮 president that he would mention the very people that we fought a revolution against to gain our freedom.
… as a reason for gun control. Whoops, forgot to add my ending. Lack of sleep will get you every time. 😵
Show me when and where any permit scheme, registration requirement, restriction on who may or what they may have, or outright prohibition or ban has ever stopped someone from committing a crime with a weapon. Then, show me where it says anything in the Constitution about who should be allowed to exercise their rights or what arms they may bear.
There has been a general prohibition of convicted felons to own or possess weapons. So why do we see felons with guns on the news or in the courts on a regular basis?
Next thing, what standards are being used to decide what probable cause or justifiable needs? From what has been published, the right to carry/bear arms been infringed on the whims of a bureaucrat or government flunky with a hangover.
“It applies only to the carrying of arms in public. It covers handguns, but not most rifles and shotguns. And instead of prohibiting the carrying of handguns entirely, it allows those who need to carry them for self-defense to do so.”
That’s what they say until a few people start carrying rifles slung over their shoulders. Then the little snowflakes will begin screaming “They’re INTIMIDATING us! The mere presence of those guns is scaring the shit out of us, and we have pee running down our legs because we’re SO afraid that if we say anything, they’ll gun us all down in cold blood!!!”
“It applies only to the carrying of arms in public. It covers handguns, but not most rifles and shotguns. And instead of prohibiting the carrying of handguns entirely, it allows those who need to carry them for self-defense to do so.”
That’s what they say until a few people start carrying rifles slung over their shoulders. Then the little snowflakes will begin screaming “They’re INTIMIDATING us! The mere presence of those guns is scaring the shit out of us, and we have pee running down our legs because we’re SO afraid that if we say anything, they’ll gun us all down in cold blood!!!”
THEN it’ll be open season to go after that “right” as well. Incrementalist bastards aren’t fooling anyone.
Comments are closed.