Here is some good news 📰

The courts struck it down…


YES a very big win, just heard some of the info on Becks show.


Another link:
BREAKING: SCOTUS tosses “may issue” firearm carry permit laws in Bruen, 6-3 – HotAir
This is huge!

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.


Liar Bitch…figures it runs in the family…:eye::face_with_monocle:

1 Like

Hmmmm…bet the PRoMD is one of them…

I see the Washington Post has already published a rather weak, yet typical (for a left-leaning rag), rebuttal article with some rather pathetic analogies regarding this decision. The wave of horseshit propaganda never ends…


The language of the Supreme Court Opinion by Justice Thomas is both strong and extremely favorable for those who believe in the Second Amendment:

“We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation…”

Note the opinion properly shifts the burden of proof. Conduct within the plain text of the amendment is presumptively protected. The government must justify its regulation of that conduct in a manner consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in this country.


That headline should read: Analysis | Criminals, get ready for more armed law abiding people in Americas largest states.


I’ve always found many people’s “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment to be laughable at best…aside from the fact they think it’s actually up for interpretation. Spoiler Alert! It’s the 2nd and the second shortest amendment for a reason, it was designed as protection for tenets laid out in the 1st Amendment (as well as those to come after) and the founding father’s didn’t mince words or use flowery language for a reason, but I digress. To my original point, the issue comes from their viewpoint on regulation. Their stance is easy to defeat without debate simply by asking them how it is that a domestic threat, in particular a potentially tyrannical government, should have the ability to regulate what is allowed by the 2nd Amendment…and in doing so, essentially circumventing the 2nd in it’s entirety, allowing the tyrannical government to be, well, tyrannical and unfettered…

Feckin’ morons, the lot.


Funny you mention the headline, that was the first thing I laughed out loud at…just a shameful and blatant attempt at fear mongering, the standard M.O. of the liberal douchebags. But that’s “journalism” for ya… :wink:

Oh, and happy cake day! :+1:


Definitely good news from the Court. NYC Mayor has been schooling his chronies on a “prohibited places” defense against this decision for the past couple of months.

They (NY, MD, etc.) will now see a flood of legislation to restrict places carry is allowed. When NYC bans carry in the Subway … that will prevent many from exercising newly restored rights.


And from Politico:
SCOTUS decision likely invalidates a California concealed carry rule, state DOJ says (


But it will still be acceptable to beat a stranger with a framing hammer or shove an old lady off the platform onto the subway tracks…


That’s not necessary.


It certainly won’t affect any criminals when carrying firearms on subways!


He’s just trolling again as you pointed out before.


Surely you’re not suggesting that criminals won’t follow the law… :smirk:


Not only is it a win for NY CCW (and self defense OUTSIDE the home), but its also a win for how they need to scrutinise constitutional cases as well (lots of folks missing this part), not to mention the 3-4 cases that we’re waiting for a decesion on this case so they can move forward (in kommiefornia). So as good as this is for NY, I think its a much bigger win for how they will have to use scrutiny for constitutional cases.

Not lets see how fast these cases move in kommiefornia.


Truth, Wisdom, Logic… These are indispensable.


It’s a family liar affair…simple as that…:face_with_monocle:

Earlier this week, after a congressional subpoena, Holder turned over all of his footage to the committee. In it, Ivanka Trump is seen telling Holder that former President Trumpshould continue to fight the election results. That contradicts her sworn testimony to the committee that she acceptedformer Attorney General Bill Barr’s statement that there was no proof of voter fraud. Holder said this discrepancy was the main focus of the committee.

When is enough enough? Libs won’t let it go.