Welcome to M1911.ORG
The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site


John needs your help
Please read this message.


Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from the companies advertising above, or near the bottom of our pages, please use their banners in our sites. Whatever you buy from them, using those banners, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: 20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

  1. #1
    Join Date
    7th May 2021
    Posts
    63
    Posts liked by others
    11

    20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

    I'm still reading this through myself, but it sure seems like it warrants a mention on the forum:

    20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022) (supremecourt.gov)

    The very short version of it so far as I see it: licensing laws and restrictions meant to effectively contradict the 2nd amendment are hopefully on the way out "because it says so in the Bill of Rights". The only shame here is the lower courts seem to have trouble interpreting the phrase "shall not be infringed".

    The longer story is I'm also working my way through "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" and have to say it's been an invaluable introduction to a much deeper topic than I anticipated. I see references to all the cases and historical records I've been reading through in the book and feel better prepared to understand the full opinion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    22,207
    Posts liked by others
    879
    This decision is momentous ... earth-shattering. It does several things:

    First, Heller established that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right but, because the Heller case was about keeping a functional firearm in the home, that's what that decision affirmed. Since then lower courts have been playing the game that 'Heller says the RKBA only applies in the home." That's silly, of course, but that what they've been saying, and this decision destroys that argument entirely.

    Second, in RKBA cases following Heller and McDonald, lower courts have been using a means balancing test to decide cases, a test which is at best intermediate scrutiny but which many of them have tried to disguise as strict scrutiny. This decision absolutely eviscerates that little game.

    Read Justice Alito's concurring opinion. I predict you're going to love it.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, please use their banners above. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Non-gun-related supporters.
Thank you for visiting our supporters.