Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Draft ruling shows Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade: report


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

just read this, and it's complete bullshit. most if not all religious schools are private. 

now, any school that is already decaying and gets hardly any funding (looking at detroit, et al) can forget it. 

this is absolute bullshit imo. 

I’m furious considering Idt any religious institutions pays a single fuckin tax and inner city schools go grossly underfunded. Idw my fuckin money going to that. Can’t wait to see how this plays out for Islamic schools or if the satanic temple builds a school and asks for funds. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GuyBeardmane said:

No, they'll rewrite the 2nd Amendment so that only white cis males that are registered Republicans can have guns, because anyone else is too much of a liberal crybaby to own one.

That will only happen after EVERYONE they never intended exercises their rights to bear arms.   They have to at least pretend they’re interpreting the constitution.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

That will only happen after EVERYONE they never intended exercises their rights to bear arms.   They have to at least pretend they’re interpreting the constitution.  

 As soon as they outlaw reading, they can do what they want.

Living through the beginning of the handmaid's tale  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

 

 

Wanna take a bet that the decision drops on Friday?  They are waiting until the last possible second to drop this decision.

Oh fuck, this is the classic Business School concept of "If you want to drop bad news, you do it during A) a major event, or B) any Friday. People are less likely to be paying attention then."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Seight said:

Oh fuck, this is the classic Business School concept of "If you want to drop bad news, you do it during A) a major event, or B) any Friday. People are less likely to be paying attention then."

They’re probably going to announce roe v Wade on Friday and be out of town minutes after

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, rpgamer said:

They don't have to outlaw reading if they're writing all the textbooks.

Yes they do because you can always go back and read the stuff that was printed before they began writing the textbooks ... like the law 

If you can't read at all, you have to trust what people tell you 

Edited by Vamped
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCOTUS struck down NY’s concealed carry law and again they use this language of what the nation has traditionally done but traditionally you could not carry weapons into any town you wanted. In the so called Wild West people had to turn over their weapons depending on the town. Like tombstone for example.  
https://abc7ny.com/amp/supreme-court-gun-case-guns-rights-concealed-carry/11990123/

https://nypost.com/2022/06/23/supreme-court-overturns-ny-law-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/amp/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loootttttsss of hot takes online about how this decision is going to mean anyone can carry a gun anywhere.


Thats not what this decision does.  What it does is remove the ability for states to subjectively restrict the ability of someone to carry a gun.  CC permits are still absolutely permitted, and even regulations on those permits are still fine, they cant just make it so someone somewhere makes a subjective decision on if a person can carry or not.

My state requires you to take a class by a state registered instructor and pass a background check before you can apply for a CC permit.  That stays in place.  What isnt allowed is to have that same process and then someone making a decision that you cant get a permit even if you passed all objective restrictions.

This decision also clearly stated that restrictions on where you can carry can stay in place, but the government cant simply say "Everywhere" when deciding where you cant carry. Schools, courts, government buildings. Those are all still gun-free zones. But the general public?  You have the right to carry.

Its no where near the hair-on-fire ruling that so many people online are saying it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Loootttttsss of hot takes online about how this decision is going to mean anyone can carry a gun anywhere.


Thats not what this decision does.  What it does is remove the ability for states to subjectively restrict the ability of someone to carry a gun.  CC permits are still absolutely permitted, and even regulations on those permits are still fine, they cant just make it so someone somewhere makes a subjective decision on if a person can carry or not.

My state requires you to take a class by a state registered instructor and pass a background check before you can apply for a CC permit.  That stays in place.  What isnt allowed is to have that same process and then someone making a decision that you cant get a permit even if you passed all objective restrictions.

This decision also clearly stated that restrictions on where you can carry can stay in place, but the government cant simply say "Everywhere" when deciding where you cant carry. Schools, courts, government buildings. Those are all still gun-free zones. But the general public?  You have the right to carry.

Its no where near the hair-on-fire ruling that so many people online are saying it is.

It's a little more than that.  I can certainly see why police and city administrations are worried about this because it specifically opens a weapons concealment to just about anyone who otherwise has a right to a weapon.  That's traditionally been something that has been restricted because it tends to make law enforcement a whole lot more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority specified that this only applies to the six jurisdictions with similar "just cause" requirements, and that NY and other states with the now-unconstitutional conceal carry laws could adopt laws similar to 43 other states.

My own concern is the 50 pages of original intent/traditions analysis, and Thomas' specific call-out of the Establishment Clause as something to be reviewed by that analysis. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

It's a little more than that.  I can certainly see why police and city administrations are worried about this because it specifically opens a weapons concealment to just about anyone who otherwise has a right to a weapon.  That's traditionally been something that has been restricted because it tends to make law enforcement a whole lot more dangerous.

Yes and no.  You can still put objective restrictions in place to get a CC permit.  Its not unusual at all to have requirements for a CC permit. Mandatory classes, range time, background checks(potentially expanded), and other reasonable and objective restrictions can be put in place.

It doesnt mean that states now must issue permits to anyone who wants one, it means that states must issue permits to anyone who can pass objective requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Master-Debater131 said:

Yes and no.  You can still put objective restrictions in place to get a CC permit.  Its not unusual at all to have requirements for a CC permit. Mandatory classes, range time, background checks(potentially expanded), and other reasonable and objective restrictions can be put in place.

It doesnt mean that states now must issue permits to anyone who wants one, it means that states must issue permits to anyone who can pass objective requirements.

That's just it, there really aren't any "objective" requirements that wouldn't disqualify someone from gun ownership in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, scoobdog said:

That's just it, there really aren't any "objective" requirements that wouldn't disqualify someone from gun ownership in general.

Sure there are. If someone refuses to go to a class, or cant pass the test at the end of the class, then they have failed an objective requirement to get a permit. If there is a requirement for range time and they either cant/don't do the range time and cant hit the target with a high enough accuracy then that is a failure of an objective test.

Those are two of the most common requirements for CC permits, and neither are requirements to own or buy a gun in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Sure there are. If someone refuses to go to a class, or cant pass the test at the end of the class, then they have failed an objective requirement to get a permit. If there is a requirement for range time and they either cant/don't do the range time and cant hit the target with a high enough accuracy then that is a failure of an objective test.

Those are two of the most common requirements for CC permits, and neither are requirements to own or buy a gun in general.

Yeah, well marksmanship and safety tests would likely also not pass muster based solely on this decision because you have to guarantee everyone has access to them regardless of race, age, sex, or economic class.  I get what you're saying, but practically speaking there isn't much room to distinguish between a gun owner and concealed carrier.  At best, it's probably a test you make them pass that doesn't require a class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Yeah, well marksmanship and safety tests would likely also not pass muster based solely on this decision because you have to guarantee everyone has access to them regardless of race, age, sex, or economic class.  I get what you're saying, but practically speaking there isn't much room to distinguish between a gun owner and concealed carrier.  At best, it's probably a test you make them pass that doesn't require a class.

Sure they would. The text explicitly stated that states can put up reasonable restrictions for issuing CC permits provided they are based on objective requirements. My state requires passing a class before you can get your CC, and that law is going to remain in effect. That is an extra bar to clear that general gun owners do not need to clear.

There's nothing stopping states from putting up restrictions on issuing CC permits provided they are based on objective restrictions and not subjective restrictions. If those restrictions become too onerous then they will likely be struck down, but as it stands the current laws and rules on the books for the vast majority of states will stay in effect. Its only the states that had subjective issue rules that will be impacted by this ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no permit requirement for owning a gun or CC in North Dakota. There is no requirement for taking aby sort of safety classes whatsoever.

21 to buy, 18 can own. Photo ID. Live in the state for a full year. 

Enjoy your gun while wandering through WalMart looking for sandles and beer. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won’t be long before huge disparities arise between the amount of cc permits issued to white people opposed to black people.  In nyc it was hard to get a CC permit. You needed a reason other than self defense.  I don’t understand how States can legislate abortion but not gun laws?  This tradition shit is crap. Traditionally scotus didn’t even rule on gun matters. It wasn’t until the 60’s and 70’s that the nra ran a campaign that the constitution says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed and NOTHING ELSE which led to the scotus hearing that DC vs idr case.  This is just stupid. Our scotus is a joke and needs to be either expanded or fuck it completely.  This court is ruling straight out their own wants and feelings 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Sure they would. The text explicitly stated that states can put up reasonable restrictions for issuing CC permits provided they are based on objective requirements. My state requires passing a class before you can get your CC, and that law is going to remain in effect. That is an extra bar to clear that general gun owners do not need to clear.

There's nothing stopping states from putting up restrictions on issuing CC permits provided they are based on objective restrictions and not subjective restrictions. If those restrictions become too onerous then they will likely be struck down, but as it stands the current laws and rules on the books for the vast majority of states will stay in effect. Its only the states that had subjective issue rules that will be impacted by this ruling.

Well....

11 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Won’t be long before huge disparities arise between the amount of cc permits issued to white people opposed to black people.  In nyc it was hard to get a CC permit. You needed a reason other than self defense.  I don’t understand how States can legislate abortion but not gun laws?  This tradition shit is crap. Traditionally scotus didn’t even rule on gun matters. It wasn’t until the 60’s and 70’s that the nra ran a campaign that the constitution says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed and NOTHING ELSE which led to the scotus hearing that DC vs idr case.  This is just stupid. Our scotus is a joke and needs to be either expanded or fuck it completely.  This court is ruling straight out their own wants and feelings 

That right there.  Your rules might not be affected now, but it's only a matter of time before someone sues the state or a local Sheriff and even these regulations go out the window.

Theoretically, no one should own a gun if they can't pass the same test you would need to get a CC permit.  All of it is common sense, not anything special to concealed carrying.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

Well....

That right there.  Your rules might not be affected now, but it's only a matter of time before someone sues the state or a local Sheriff and even these regulations go out the window.

Theoretically, no one should own a gun if they can't pass the same test you would need to get a CC permit.  All of it is common sense, not anything special to concealed carrying.

I also worry that in a city the size of nyc, with the amount of mentally ill homeless we have, it’ll be no time before one of them gets hurt, or worse.  Someone on the subway could shoot dead a sick person because “they felt threatened”. I don’t like this at all. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

Well....

That right there.  Your rules might not be affected now, but it's only a matter of time before someone sues the state or a local Sheriff and even these regulations go out the window.

Theoretically, no one should own a gun if they can't pass the same test you would need to get a CC permit.  All of it is common sense, not anything special to concealed carrying.

Well well well, if it isnt the ol "Slippery Slope" argument popping up. Strange seeing it from this side.

We will see if that happens.  Judging by the concurrences Im not so sure there are 5 votes to push for Constitutional Carry. Even Thomas has said that reasonable restrictions for 2A are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Well well well, if it isnt the ol "Slippery Slope" argument popping up. Strange seeing it from this side.

We will see if that happens.  Judging by the concurrences Im not so sure there are 5 votes to push for Constitutional Carry. Even Thomas has said that reasonable restrictions for 2A are fine.

Don't be daft.  It doesn't count as a slippery slope when you undercut the basic legal principle behind just about any concealed carry law in existence.  Thomas made it crystal clear that the burden of proof for "self-defense" is on the issuer not the issuee.  To meet that burden, all I have to do is say I fear for my life.  If I can't afford to take a gun safety course but I still carry a concealed weapon and get arrested, the first thing a lawyer is going to say is that my rights as a citizen were impinged because I'm being asked to prove that I need the weapon for self defense by being asked to attend a class that I can't attend.  You're ignoring the fact that Thomas' decision is vaguely enough written that it doesn't give cover to all the laws that were not affected directly by the ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

so wait. is the ruling on roe v. wade? or gun control? 

because ....

**looks at thread title*

inquiring minds are confused. 

 

Keep your short on.  We're just killing time until that travesty of a decision is dropped on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

i've been arrested a few times, never had them read to me. 

Maybe they only do it on TV or for serious felonies? 🤷‍♀️ Cuz when I told my lawyer they never read me my rights he laughed in my face. Told me “just plead guilty, get a conditional dc, do some community service and go home”.  One time I had a judge that was really cool. 25 years later I saw her on tv. Judge Patricia DiMango. She didn’t throw my ass in jail 😆

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Chapinator_X said:

Legalizing concealed carry at the same time you allow cops to arrest people without reading them their Miranda Rights is going to get so many BLACK people killed. 

I felt the need to add that in, because I'm going to say 99 out of 100 times cops won't pull guns on white folks in the vast majority of situations.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Maybe they only do it on TV or for serious felonies? 🤷‍♀️ Cuz when I told my lawyer they never read me my rights he laughed in my face. Told me “just plead guilty, get a conditional dc, do some community service and go home”.  One time I had a judge that was really cool. 25 years later I saw her on tv. Judge Patricia DiMango. She didn’t throw my ass in jail 😆

yeah, all of my 'offenses' were nothing and i was just let go, or fined. but yeah, lawyer LOL'd at me as well. 

so, all my years of watching t.j. hooker didn't pay off. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, discolé monade said:

yeah, all of my 'offenses' were nothing and i was just let go, or fined. but yeah, lawyer LOL'd at me as well. 

so, all my years of watching t.j. hooker didn't pay off. 

Watching law and order also taught me nothing. Lying ass bullshit show. Fuck you law and order! 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

yeah, all of my 'offenses' were nothing and i was just let go, or fined. but yeah, lawyer LOL'd at me as well. 

so, all my years of watching t.j. hooker didn't pay off. 

 

8 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Watching law and order also taught me nothing. Lying ass bullshit show. Fuck you law and order! 

One time I got pulled over (can't exactly remember for what but VERY most likely speeding), so as I was waiting for the cop to come to my window I quickly dug out my registration from my glove box and my license from my wallet and immediately tried handing it to him. He looked at it but didn't take it and asked me what I was doing. I said it's my license and registration. He said I could put it away. I said you don't need to see it? He said, no that's just something Hollywood (meaning TV/movies etc) does. I think he told me police very rarely need to see people's registration and often don't need to see their license.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...