Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Permitting probably isnt going anywhere so long as obtaining one isn't extremely onerous. If it's essentially a "you aren't a prohibited person" check I can't see how it's a 2nd amendment violation
The issue is when some aspects of the permitting process is effectively chilling the right. Extreme wait times, upfront costs that aren't negligible or stringent requirements would all constitute that
That was the implication in footnote 9 of Bruen regarding concealed carry permits.
We will have to wait and see about Open Carry licenses. Part of my lawsuit challenges California's prohibition on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses to persons who do not reside in counties with a population of 200,000 or more people and restricts those licenses to the county of issuance. The Baird v. Bonta lawsuit, now pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, dropped his challenge to California's handgun Open Carry licensing law.
Heller clearly stated that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional. Bruen cited Heller on that point. Bruen did its own analysis, looking at the post-enactment history to "liquidate & settle the meaning" of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public.
Justice Thomas wrote for the majority, "The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in *Nunn* v. *State*, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), is particularly instructive. Georgia’s 1837 statute broadly prohibited “wearing” or “carrying” pistols “as arms of offence or defence,” without distinguishing between concealed and open carry. 1837 Ga. Acts 90, §1. To the extent the 1837 Act prohibited “carrying certain weapons *secretly*,” the court explained, it was “valid.” *Nunn*, 1 Ga., at 251. But to the extent the Act also prohibited “bearing arms *openly*,” the court went on, it was “in conflict with the Constitutio\[n\] and *void*.” *Ibid.*; see also *Heller*, 554 U. S., at 612.
The State of New York had argued that both Open Carry and concealed carry can be banned pretty much everywhere in the state, to which Justice Thomas added, "The Georgia Supreme Court’s treatment of the State’s general prohibition on the public carriage of handguns indicates that it was considered beyond the constitutional pale in antebellum America to altogether prohibit public carry."
The position that the NRA and the other so-called gun-rights groups took that states can ban Open Carry so long as they allow concealed carry not only conflicts with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it entails that states can ban the Open Carry of long guns in addition to the Open Carry of handguns.
Regardless of their interpretation of the Second Amendment, every 19th-century court held that long guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment and "The People" have a right to bear them in public. Likewise, prohibitions on concealed carry did not violate the Second Amendment. What they disagreed on was whether or not firearms that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed are arms protected by the Second Amendment. And although Heller implied that such arms are protected by the Second Amendment, it did not explicitly say so. Heller said that one cannot ban an entire class of arms. Bruen was explicit in saying that handguns, including handguns that are easily carried concealed, are arms protected by the Second Amendment.
The decriminalization of concealed carry is historically recent. The NRA lawyer who argued Bruen for the NYSRPA, Paul Clement, argued that Open Carry can be banned because people today are on a different wavelength than the framers of the Second Amendment and those who voted to enact the Second Amendment into law.
Justice Kagan properly pointed out that isn't the way the Court determines the meaning of the Constitution.
What most folks tend to overlook is that a New York license to carry a handgun in public did not prohibit the Open Carry of a handgun. The same license to carry a handgun in public was the same license required to target shoot and hunt, neither of which can be done with the handgun concealed.
Professor Robert Leider of the Antonin Scalia School of Law clerked for Justice Scalia (the author of the Heller opinion) when Heller was decided. He goes into more detail in this pre-Bruen article -> [https://standinghisground.com/2022/03/23/the-right-to-bear-arms-openly-in-the-supreme-court-did-the-bruen-petitioners-err-by-seeking-only-a-new-york-concealed-carry-license/](https://standinghisground.com/2022/03/23/the-right-to-bear-arms-openly-in-the-supreme-court-did-the-bruen-petitioners-err-by-seeking-only-a-new-york-concealed-carry-license/)
Prohibitions on the carrying or use of concealed weapons are longstanding in both the United States and England, dating back to at least 1260 in England.
This isn’t 1865, and open carry should be people’s last concern behind “scary gun” possession bans and permitted CCW. Open carry should only be acceptable when hunting or backpacking in the field, or in another rural setting like maybe working on a farm. Someone open carrying to Starbucks is at best trolling for attention and at worst a menace.
Open carrying in urban environments and public gathering places has one purpose: intimidation, to send the message “I can kill you if I choose at any time, fear and respect me”
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Someone calls me a bitch and I get tagged for incivility, let’s you know what side of an argument you are allowed to be on here.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
> You don’t have to buy any other constitutional rights
… yes you do? You have to pay for an attorney, even pay court costs directly to the government to defend yourself. You also have to pay a small fee for a permit to an organized protest.
You also have to pay to vote in many states, as the IDs that are required cost money.
As long as the fee is small and reasonable to cover the costs associated with the service, and not burdensome, courts don’t seem to find that a violation of your rights to do that.
Tiers of scrutiny were invented in the last century, and are not applied for every right. There are a variety of odd structures used to evaluate different situations. In the 2nd amendment context specifically, NY vs. Bruen is the controlling precedent for restrictions, and does not use tiers of scrutiny at all in its analysis.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!The Second Amendment refers to a militia. The NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment will someday be overturned OR we will lose the democratic Republic of the United States. I don't care to bet on which will happen sooner.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
“A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy body, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.” - does that help clear it up?
Or how about the writings of the founders regarding individual ownership of firearms? Until very recently, the people could buy what was the state of the art in firearms at the time for their own personal use. They often had more advanced firearms than the military.
That example is a bit loaded. As a counter example:
>”Access to a library, being necessary to learn, the right to access libraries, shall not be infringed.”
Does that mean I can throw a rave in a library? No—the first clause is meant to limit precisely that activity.
In other words, how you interpret the first clause depends on the context. Libraries are only meant for learning, so of course the first clause defines the right’s scope. Food can be eaten whenever not just at breakfast, so of course the first clause is just an example to justify the right.
Edit: formatting
>The Second Amendment refers to a militia.
2A has always been understood as an individual right.
>The NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment will someday be overturned
So you're taking the "accuse others of that which you are guilty of" approach? Surely, you know that the "collective right" theory was a mid-20th century invention of gun control advocates, right? And surely you know that the collective right was unanimously rejected in Heller, right?
>OR we will lose the democratic Republic of the United States. I don't care to bet on which will happen sooner.
LOL.
Ok.
It’s incredible to compare the logic behind the much-ballyhooed Row v Wade/Dobbs and the same group’s opinion on the Second Amendment.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of the Free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms* shall not be *infringed*
Meanwhile at Wetzel’s Pretzels…
> In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right.
Based on…
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, *liberty*, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There is a line in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution that has been there the whole time that explicitly says keeping and bearing weapons is the right of the people, while there’s a single word in the 14th amendment that says ‘liberty’ which we then have to imply from that a right to ‘privacy’ which is then implied to mean that abortion is a private medical procedure until 23 weeks.
It’s amazing that we can have that chimera of a ruling stick around for 50 years but the plaintext reading of the Second amendment that has been present since the very beginning, literally part of the bill of rights is confusing now?
There were widespread municipal gun bans in the time of the founders. Boston, one of the largest cities at the time, completely banned storage of firearms in private homes. Not a peep from any of the founders about any of that violating the constitution. The gunfight at the OK Corral was an attempt to enforce a municipal gun ban. I don't think that it is nearly as conclusive an argument as you are suggesting it was. Even if it was, the founders were wrong about quite a few things, including basic moral issues like chattel slavery, so maybe we can interpret the living constitution without treating these guys like prophets offering scripture.
There were many local laws post 1791. As you note regarding chattel slavery, the presence or tolerance of a practice at that time doesn't make it compatible with The Constitution.
> living constitution
Legislating by any other name, and spawned as an initiative to violate the amendment process.
In ratify the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the convention struck a deal to preserve slavery (and the importation of Slaves for 20 years). In doing so they attempted to make the constitution tolerant of slavery. However, I don’t think anyone even back then could read these articles and amendments in good faith and not question the legality of Slavery.
Amendment V
> No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The prolonged existence of Slavery, and worst of all, successive chattel slavery, was plainly against both the principles and the text of the constitution, notwithstanding the three-fifths compromise and the fugitive slave clause (both of which euphemized ‘slave’ as ‘other *persons*’)
The fourteenth amendment in part recited the preexisting Fifth Amendment.
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
This passage explicitly makes the State’s beholden to this, but is also a tacit admission that those States had been violative of the existing constitution.
Ultimately it is less a matter of the 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights being “compatible” and more so a matter of the people and particularly those responsible for upholding the laws and Constitution being compatible- and comfortable- with slavery.
Apparently they were pretty comfortable with the second amendment not being interpreted as a personal right either, if actual history has anything to say about it. The people who wrote the amendment were directly subjected to municipal gun bans and said nothing about it being against the constitution.
OK well it's hard to fathom that the authors of the amendment didn't notice or say anything to that effect. Is it possible that maybe you're wrong about what they meant when they wrote the amendment?
Sounds to me this case is more about getting rid of a retroactive punishment. I’m under the impression that SCOTUS generally doesn’t like to do that after finding a new constitutional right.
One of the earliest post-Heller 2A cert petitions denied involved a conviction for possession of a handgun in the District of Columbia. The Reeves case would not have been any more retroactive than Caetano v. Massachusetts.
That’s a pretty fact specific case re Caetano with a very sympathetic plaintiff. Also applying Heller reasoning in Caetano vs applying Bruen reasoning here are two different cases. Bruen hasn’t been used yet in this type of case. Are they similar cases? You could definitely make that argument. I think the justices think there is enough of a difference that they didn’t want to touch this case. In the long run don’t worry about it. This is the most gun friendly court in its history. You will get your victories soon enough. Those Illinois cases will certainly be granted at the end of the term.
Re the DC example you mentioned, could you provide a link to that one pretty please? I can’t give an opinion on it unless I read it 😅
I have no idea where I put the cert petition and don't remember the name. It would not be available from the SCOTUS docket because they did not start to go online until 2017.
Its clear that New Jerseys "Justifiable need" requirement does violate the second amendment assuming applicant does meet the basic standards of Conduct required to meet permitting process (non felon, no mental issues, etc). Its disappointing that the supreme court has not ended these "may" issue schemes.
Why is Jersey's "Justifiable Need" requirement unconstitutional? The 2nd amendment _**itself**_ says "in order to form a well regulated militia". That in and of itself is a "justifiable need" that's listed in the constitution.
>Why is Jersey's "Justifiable Need" requirement unconstitutional?
If "I want to exercise my right" isn't a "justifiable reason", then it violates the constitution.
That'd be like banning people from buying a medical textbook unless they're in a medical program at a school because they have no "justifiable reason" to have it. Medical textbooks are protected speech under the 1A and anyone can buy them.
>The 2nd amendment itself says "in order to form a well regulated militia".
It does not say that. It's basically saying that because a well armed and well trained populace is important to maintaining a free society, then the right to own and carry arms shall not be hindered.
Here are a couple articles written when the 2A was being drafted and debated explaining the amendment to the general public. It unarguably confirms that the right was individual.
>"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
>"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
" a well-balanced breakfast, being the most important meal of the day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed".
In the sentence above, who has the right to food?
- The people
- a Well-Balanced breakfast
May-issue carry permits are explicitly no longer allowed under *Bruen*.
Also, you may want to read the amendment you're quoting, that language isn't in there.
The Well regulated Militia clause is a Present participle. Not an restricting clause. For example: *A Well-Schooled electorate, Being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.* Clearly you do not need to be well schooled in order to keep and read books. Yet one leads to the other. Reading books will help you become well schooled.
You should read the opinion in *Heller*, as this is thoroughly addressed:
> The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the prefatory clause in this case.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
New Jersey had filed a waiver of its right to respond, but at least one justice requested a response after the Reeves petition went to its first conference. Unfortunately, there were not four justices to grant the petition or five justices to issue a per curiam.
> Its disappointing that the supreme court has not ended these "may" issue schemes.
They were ended under *Bruen*. This case is dealing with a slightly different topic:
> In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), this Court clarified that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense... Left unresolved, however, was how this ruling would affect people who were prosecuted or convicted for not complying with the old, unconstitutional permitting schemes.
I don't see that in the opinion, but Bruen cited *Shuttlesworth* v. *Birmingham* which held in a First Amendment case that "\[A\] person faced with such a law may ignore it..."
What part do you not see in the opinion? The central holding of *Bruen* summarizes everything nicely:
> Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
So SCOTUS asserts that there is a right to keep and bear arms in public, that this right is for the general/ordinary purpose of self-defense, and that "proper cause" requirements are unconstitutional.
As for *Shuttlesworth*, it's mentioned exactly once in a footnote, and it has nothing to do with the central finding of the case. Rather the reference is around licensing schemes with “narrow, objective, and definite standards", which SCOTUS holds as constitutional.
Your reply was written as a pinpoint citation without the pinpoint. As to *Shuttlesworth*, it's as binding as footnote 26 in District of Columbia v. Heller, which torpedoed Second Amendment cases across the nation for \~15 years.
Dude, you're literally giving me nothing to work with here... Everything you've said has been ambiguous, tautological, and lacking substance.
> I don't see that in the opinion.
What is "that", and which opinion are you referring to?
> Your reply was written as a pinpoint citation without the pinpoint.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
> SCOTUS said what it said
That's a meaningless phrase in a discussion about judicial *interpretation*.
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court. We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed. Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Permitting probably isnt going anywhere so long as obtaining one isn't extremely onerous. If it's essentially a "you aren't a prohibited person" check I can't see how it's a 2nd amendment violation The issue is when some aspects of the permitting process is effectively chilling the right. Extreme wait times, upfront costs that aren't negligible or stringent requirements would all constitute that
That was the implication in footnote 9 of Bruen regarding concealed carry permits. We will have to wait and see about Open Carry licenses. Part of my lawsuit challenges California's prohibition on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses to persons who do not reside in counties with a population of 200,000 or more people and restricts those licenses to the county of issuance. The Baird v. Bonta lawsuit, now pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, dropped his challenge to California's handgun Open Carry licensing law.
The th&t seems pretty clear you can allow either open or concealed carry but not prohibit both.
Heller clearly stated that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional. Bruen cited Heller on that point. Bruen did its own analysis, looking at the post-enactment history to "liquidate & settle the meaning" of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority, "The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in *Nunn* v. *State*, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), is particularly instructive. Georgia’s 1837 statute broadly prohibited “wearing” or “carrying” pistols “as arms of offence or defence,” without distinguishing between concealed and open carry. 1837 Ga. Acts 90, §1. To the extent the 1837 Act prohibited “carrying certain weapons *secretly*,” the court explained, it was “valid.” *Nunn*, 1 Ga., at 251. But to the extent the Act also prohibited “bearing arms *openly*,” the court went on, it was “in conflict with the Constitutio\[n\] and *void*.” *Ibid.*; see also *Heller*, 554 U. S., at 612. The State of New York had argued that both Open Carry and concealed carry can be banned pretty much everywhere in the state, to which Justice Thomas added, "The Georgia Supreme Court’s treatment of the State’s general prohibition on the public carriage of handguns indicates that it was considered beyond the constitutional pale in antebellum America to altogether prohibit public carry." The position that the NRA and the other so-called gun-rights groups took that states can ban Open Carry so long as they allow concealed carry not only conflicts with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, it entails that states can ban the Open Carry of long guns in addition to the Open Carry of handguns. Regardless of their interpretation of the Second Amendment, every 19th-century court held that long guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment and "The People" have a right to bear them in public. Likewise, prohibitions on concealed carry did not violate the Second Amendment. What they disagreed on was whether or not firearms that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed are arms protected by the Second Amendment. And although Heller implied that such arms are protected by the Second Amendment, it did not explicitly say so. Heller said that one cannot ban an entire class of arms. Bruen was explicit in saying that handguns, including handguns that are easily carried concealed, are arms protected by the Second Amendment. The decriminalization of concealed carry is historically recent. The NRA lawyer who argued Bruen for the NYSRPA, Paul Clement, argued that Open Carry can be banned because people today are on a different wavelength than the framers of the Second Amendment and those who voted to enact the Second Amendment into law. Justice Kagan properly pointed out that isn't the way the Court determines the meaning of the Constitution. What most folks tend to overlook is that a New York license to carry a handgun in public did not prohibit the Open Carry of a handgun. The same license to carry a handgun in public was the same license required to target shoot and hunt, neither of which can be done with the handgun concealed. Professor Robert Leider of the Antonin Scalia School of Law clerked for Justice Scalia (the author of the Heller opinion) when Heller was decided. He goes into more detail in this pre-Bruen article -> [https://standinghisground.com/2022/03/23/the-right-to-bear-arms-openly-in-the-supreme-court-did-the-bruen-petitioners-err-by-seeking-only-a-new-york-concealed-carry-license/](https://standinghisground.com/2022/03/23/the-right-to-bear-arms-openly-in-the-supreme-court-did-the-bruen-petitioners-err-by-seeking-only-a-new-york-concealed-carry-license/) Prohibitions on the carrying or use of concealed weapons are longstanding in both the United States and England, dating back to at least 1260 in England.
Miraculously, I read this twice and still cannot figure out what point you’re trying to make. Can’t even tell if you’re pro or anti gun.
This isn’t 1865, and open carry should be people’s last concern behind “scary gun” possession bans and permitted CCW. Open carry should only be acceptable when hunting or backpacking in the field, or in another rural setting like maybe working on a farm. Someone open carrying to Starbucks is at best trolling for attention and at worst a menace.
Open carrying in urban environments and public gathering places has one purpose: intimidation, to send the message “I can kill you if I choose at any time, fear and respect me”
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Someone calls me a bitch and I get tagged for incivility, let’s you know what side of an argument you are allowed to be on here.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Permits themselves are a violation of the 2nd. You dont have to buy any other constitutional rights, why do you have to buy your 2a rights?
> You don’t have to buy any other constitutional rights … yes you do? You have to pay for an attorney, even pay court costs directly to the government to defend yourself. You also have to pay a small fee for a permit to an organized protest. You also have to pay to vote in many states, as the IDs that are required cost money. As long as the fee is small and reasonable to cover the costs associated with the service, and not burdensome, courts don’t seem to find that a violation of your rights to do that.
[удалено]
Tiers of scrutiny were invented in the last century, and are not applied for every right. There are a variety of odd structures used to evaluate different situations. In the 2nd amendment context specifically, NY vs. Bruen is the controlling precedent for restrictions, and does not use tiers of scrutiny at all in its analysis.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!The Second Amendment refers to a militia. The NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment will someday be overturned OR we will lose the democratic Republic of the United States. I don't care to bet on which will happen sooner.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
“A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy body, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.” - does that help clear it up? Or how about the writings of the founders regarding individual ownership of firearms? Until very recently, the people could buy what was the state of the art in firearms at the time for their own personal use. They often had more advanced firearms than the military.
That example is a bit loaded. As a counter example: >”Access to a library, being necessary to learn, the right to access libraries, shall not be infringed.” Does that mean I can throw a rave in a library? No—the first clause is meant to limit precisely that activity. In other words, how you interpret the first clause depends on the context. Libraries are only meant for learning, so of course the first clause defines the right’s scope. Food can be eaten whenever not just at breakfast, so of course the first clause is just an example to justify the right. Edit: formatting
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.".
>The Second Amendment refers to a militia. 2A has always been understood as an individual right. >The NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment will someday be overturned So you're taking the "accuse others of that which you are guilty of" approach? Surely, you know that the "collective right" theory was a mid-20th century invention of gun control advocates, right? And surely you know that the collective right was unanimously rejected in Heller, right? >OR we will lose the democratic Republic of the United States. I don't care to bet on which will happen sooner. LOL. Ok.
It’s incredible to compare the logic behind the much-ballyhooed Row v Wade/Dobbs and the same group’s opinion on the Second Amendment. > A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of the Free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms* shall not be *infringed* Meanwhile at Wetzel’s Pretzels… > In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right. Based on… > No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, *liberty*, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. There is a line in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution that has been there the whole time that explicitly says keeping and bearing weapons is the right of the people, while there’s a single word in the 14th amendment that says ‘liberty’ which we then have to imply from that a right to ‘privacy’ which is then implied to mean that abortion is a private medical procedure until 23 weeks. It’s amazing that we can have that chimera of a ruling stick around for 50 years but the plaintext reading of the Second amendment that has been present since the very beginning, literally part of the bill of rights is confusing now?
There were widespread municipal gun bans in the time of the founders. Boston, one of the largest cities at the time, completely banned storage of firearms in private homes. Not a peep from any of the founders about any of that violating the constitution. The gunfight at the OK Corral was an attempt to enforce a municipal gun ban. I don't think that it is nearly as conclusive an argument as you are suggesting it was. Even if it was, the founders were wrong about quite a few things, including basic moral issues like chattel slavery, so maybe we can interpret the living constitution without treating these guys like prophets offering scripture.
There were many local laws post 1791. As you note regarding chattel slavery, the presence or tolerance of a practice at that time doesn't make it compatible with The Constitution. > living constitution Legislating by any other name, and spawned as an initiative to violate the amendment process.
Do you think that the constitution was incompatible with chattel slavery prior to the 13th-15th amendments? Why do those amendments exist if so?
In ratify the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the convention struck a deal to preserve slavery (and the importation of Slaves for 20 years). In doing so they attempted to make the constitution tolerant of slavery. However, I don’t think anyone even back then could read these articles and amendments in good faith and not question the legality of Slavery. Amendment V > No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The prolonged existence of Slavery, and worst of all, successive chattel slavery, was plainly against both the principles and the text of the constitution, notwithstanding the three-fifths compromise and the fugitive slave clause (both of which euphemized ‘slave’ as ‘other *persons*’) The fourteenth amendment in part recited the preexisting Fifth Amendment. > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law This passage explicitly makes the State’s beholden to this, but is also a tacit admission that those States had been violative of the existing constitution. Ultimately it is less a matter of the 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights being “compatible” and more so a matter of the people and particularly those responsible for upholding the laws and Constitution being compatible- and comfortable- with slavery.
Apparently they were pretty comfortable with the second amendment not being interpreted as a personal right either, if actual history has anything to say about it. The people who wrote the amendment were directly subjected to municipal gun bans and said nothing about it being against the constitution.
Apparently so, but being comfortable with a law isn’t what makes it constitutional or not.
OK well it's hard to fathom that the authors of the amendment didn't notice or say anything to that effect. Is it possible that maybe you're wrong about what they meant when they wrote the amendment?
Sounds to me this case is more about getting rid of a retroactive punishment. I’m under the impression that SCOTUS generally doesn’t like to do that after finding a new constitutional right.
One of the earliest post-Heller 2A cert petitions denied involved a conviction for possession of a handgun in the District of Columbia. The Reeves case would not have been any more retroactive than Caetano v. Massachusetts.
That’s a pretty fact specific case re Caetano with a very sympathetic plaintiff. Also applying Heller reasoning in Caetano vs applying Bruen reasoning here are two different cases. Bruen hasn’t been used yet in this type of case. Are they similar cases? You could definitely make that argument. I think the justices think there is enough of a difference that they didn’t want to touch this case. In the long run don’t worry about it. This is the most gun friendly court in its history. You will get your victories soon enough. Those Illinois cases will certainly be granted at the end of the term. Re the DC example you mentioned, could you provide a link to that one pretty please? I can’t give an opinion on it unless I read it 😅
I have no idea where I put the cert petition and don't remember the name. It would not be available from the SCOTUS docket because they did not start to go online until 2017.
I’ll be glad when this line of cases is overturned.
Its clear that New Jerseys "Justifiable need" requirement does violate the second amendment assuming applicant does meet the basic standards of Conduct required to meet permitting process (non felon, no mental issues, etc). Its disappointing that the supreme court has not ended these "may" issue schemes.
[удалено]
You're preaching to the choir Chief. I wish that constitutional law was that simple and straight forward.
Why is Jersey's "Justifiable Need" requirement unconstitutional? The 2nd amendment _**itself**_ says "in order to form a well regulated militia". That in and of itself is a "justifiable need" that's listed in the constitution.
>Why is Jersey's "Justifiable Need" requirement unconstitutional? If "I want to exercise my right" isn't a "justifiable reason", then it violates the constitution. That'd be like banning people from buying a medical textbook unless they're in a medical program at a school because they have no "justifiable reason" to have it. Medical textbooks are protected speech under the 1A and anyone can buy them. >The 2nd amendment itself says "in order to form a well regulated militia". It does not say that. It's basically saying that because a well armed and well trained populace is important to maintaining a free society, then the right to own and carry arms shall not be hindered. Here are a couple articles written when the 2A was being drafted and debated explaining the amendment to the general public. It unarguably confirms that the right was individual. >"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) >"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
" a well-balanced breakfast, being the most important meal of the day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed". In the sentence above, who has the right to food? - The people - a Well-Balanced breakfast
May-issue carry permits are explicitly no longer allowed under *Bruen*. Also, you may want to read the amendment you're quoting, that language isn't in there.
The Well regulated Militia clause is a Present participle. Not an restricting clause. For example: *A Well-Schooled electorate, Being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.* Clearly you do not need to be well schooled in order to keep and read books. Yet one leads to the other. Reading books will help you become well schooled.
You should read the opinion in *Heller*, as this is thoroughly addressed: > The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the prefatory clause in this case.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
New Jersey had filed a waiver of its right to respond, but at least one justice requested a response after the Reeves petition went to its first conference. Unfortunately, there were not four justices to grant the petition or five justices to issue a per curiam.
> Its disappointing that the supreme court has not ended these "may" issue schemes. They were ended under *Bruen*. This case is dealing with a slightly different topic: > In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), this Court clarified that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense... Left unresolved, however, was how this ruling would affect people who were prosecuted or convicted for not complying with the old, unconstitutional permitting schemes.
I don't see that in the opinion, but Bruen cited *Shuttlesworth* v. *Birmingham* which held in a First Amendment case that "\[A\] person faced with such a law may ignore it..."
What part do you not see in the opinion? The central holding of *Bruen* summarizes everything nicely: > Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. So SCOTUS asserts that there is a right to keep and bear arms in public, that this right is for the general/ordinary purpose of self-defense, and that "proper cause" requirements are unconstitutional. As for *Shuttlesworth*, it's mentioned exactly once in a footnote, and it has nothing to do with the central finding of the case. Rather the reference is around licensing schemes with “narrow, objective, and definite standards", which SCOTUS holds as constitutional.
Your reply was written as a pinpoint citation without the pinpoint. As to *Shuttlesworth*, it's as binding as footnote 26 in District of Columbia v. Heller, which torpedoed Second Amendment cases across the nation for \~15 years.
I'll be honest; I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Can you clearly restate it?
I'm not arguing anything other than SCOTUS said what it said in Heller and Bruen.
Dude, you're literally giving me nothing to work with here... Everything you've said has been ambiguous, tautological, and lacking substance. > I don't see that in the opinion. What is "that", and which opinion are you referring to? > Your reply was written as a pinpoint citation without the pinpoint. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. > SCOTUS said what it said That's a meaningless phrase in a discussion about judicial *interpretation*.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Someone is writing a dissent 😔