Divemedic

Reading Comprehension

New York has come up with a genius plan for circumventing the recent SCOTUS decision: they want to declare all of NY a “gun free zone,” this proving that they haven’t actually read the decision. If they HAD read it, they would know that SCOTUS already rejected that argument:

That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded

By Divemedic, ago

Bitch Slapping

I promise you that Clarence Thomas has been sitting at home thinking about all of the attacks that his wife has had to endure, the threats of impeachment, and the disgraceful attacks on justices. Now that the decisions are rolling out, he is having the last laugh as he metaphorically bitch slaps the left like Will Smith slapped Chris Rock.

Get my wife’s name out of your f*ckin’ mouth.

By Divemedic, ago

Government Beat Down

An Atlanta Patient Advocate at the VA (a government employee) brutally beat a 73 year old veteran. He still has a job there.

If this is how they treat citizens now, think of how things will be if the citizens are disarmed. You will also note that it is a black man beating the shit out of a white man, but not one of the articles on this event make a single mention of race. If it were reversed, how would the stories read?

By Divemedic, ago

Breaking SCOTUS Decision

SCOTUS releases decision in NY pistol case, ruling that New York’s means test is unconstitutional. The decision can be found here (pdf alert). A couple of money quotes:

Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.”

Here is another gem where SCOTUS declares that we have a right to bear arms outside of the home:

The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.

There are also some phrases that may come back to haunt gun owners because they discuss historical restrictions that form the basis of what the court would find constitutional. For example:

the common-law offenses of “affray” or going armed “to the terror
of the people” continued to impose some limits on firearm carry in the
antebellum period.

It seems like the court is saying that either concealed or open carry must at a minimum be permitted:

In the early to mid-19th century, some States began enacting laws that proscribed the concealed carry of pistols and other small weapons. But the antebellum state-court decisions upholding them evince a consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the public carry of arms protected by the Second Amendment or state analogues.

or this one that I can see as the foundation for a challenge to “assault weapons”:

The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

There is a lot here, and a further review by someone more knowledgeable than I is needed. One thing is for sure: the lower courts will be visiting this topic for years, but at least we have a win for gun rights.

By Divemedic, ago