Supreme Court set to give the most extremist movement in the US a big win -- and it's not abortion

[marmar]

Supreme Court set to give the most extremist movement in the US a big win — and it's not abortion
The most established extremist movement in the country is the unfettered gun rights movement

By HEATHER DIGBY PARTON
PUBLISHED MAY 16, 2022 9:59AM


(Salon) This weekend's horrific mass killing in Buffalo serves as a tragic reminder that the radicalism of the American right-wing is not confined to abortion policy or an anti-democratic movement to take over the election machinery for partisan gain. The most established extremist movement in the country is the unfettered gun rights movement.

Much like the anti-abortion zealots, gun extremists have been methodically chipping away at existing gun safety laws in states while pushing for federal action that would finally achieve their goal of legal possession of deadly firearms by anyone, anywhere, for any reason. There hasn't been as much talk about it, but the Supreme Court heard a case this session that could do for gun proliferation advocates what the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case looks poised to do for the anti-abortion movement. The decision could even be announced on the same day. It was just 14 years ago, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, that a bare majority of the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Constitution grants an individual right to bear arms. It was a landmark case that handed the gun lobby the definition it had long sought. Former Justice John Paul Stephens called it the worst decision of his tenure, noting that when he came on the court there was not even any discussion of gun ownership being a "fundamental right." Over the years, however, the NRA worked very hard to make the case and Heller was finally taken up by the conservative majority in 2008. However, even with that proclamation, the court did not suggest that this meant states had no right to enact gun safety measures. The author of the opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia held that while people had the right to keep guns in their homes, communities still had an interest in public safety and keeping dangerous modern weapons off the streets. That was unsatisfying for the gun fetishists so they immediately began taking steps to ensure that interest was as proscribed as possible.

The case the court heard this term, New York State Rifle and Pistol Asso­ci­ation v. Bruen, involves New York's long-standing law that only people with a specific need ("proper cause" ) can be licensed to carry a concealed weapon in the state. The plaintiffs in this case both applied for and were granted concealed carry permits but were restricted in where they were allowed to carry their guns. They, along with the NRA, sued, saying they have an unfettered 2nd Amendment right to carry their guns virtu­ally whenever and wherever they feel they might need to defend themselves. In other words, they believe they have a constitutional right to carry a gun at all times. ...............(more)

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/16/set-to-give-the-most-extremist-movement-in-the-us-a-big-win--and-its-not-abortion/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. It'll be Buffalo-Tops every week

everywhere in Christendom

[Wednesdays]

2. Everywhere in the United States.

Canada, Germany, Belgium, not so much.

[IronLionZion]

7. It feels like it's every day, maybe more on some days

[dalton99a]

3. The purpose of the Trump Court is to protect the FREEDOM of the Trump trash to inflict suffering and

mayhem upon American society

[marmar]

4. Truth.

[Stuart G]

5. Truth. Number 2

[Harker]

6. It's a key component of the ongoing coup. n/t

[mountain grammy]

21. Yes, that about sums it up..

[calimary]

26. Oh MAN! Looks like it. Sure feels like it, too.

This is getting more sickening by the day.

[3825-87867]

8. Everywhere? Except...

the Supreme Court Chamber, Police Stations, Republican Rallies, Mar-a-Lardo, etc., etc.

But I guess it'll be ok to carry if a MAGAt attends ANY Democrat's Rally - you know, in case he or she or it feels threatened or doesn't like what's being said because feelings...

Can't wait for Tucker to have an public open event or Teddy to give a public speech. Maybe some Lib will show up carrying - in case?

Be careful what you ask for, ammosexuals. You may not like the consequences. You certainly didn't think them through.

[OMGWTF]

16. Those Reicht-winged ammosexuals don't realize Progressives aren't coming after your guns,

because we have our own.

[BradBo]

9. "Are you looking at me!" Blammmoo, take that!

[Novara]

10. Carrying a gun into church is part of a well-regulated militia?

Into school?

Into a shopping mall?

Into work?

Into the gym?

Into the library?

Into a baseball game?

Into the theater?

On the subway?

Into the park?



Who knew these places were so damned dangerous? Well, they weren't, until these motherfuckers made them dangerous.

[KS Toronado]

11. Into Ukraine?

Would get them off our streets.

[calimary]

27. They just don't count the "well-regulated" part.

That’s the part they ignore.

[Novara]

29. Right. So tell me again that the SCOTUS tends to be originalists.

Originalists my ass.

[calimary]

33. I'm not 100% sure about that label but it's my understanding that

an “originalist” is one who believes in the Constitution AS WRITTEN, with the mentality AND reality of THAT particular time. Late 1700s. Which was fine then. And, women weren’t even MENTIONED in those founding documents because nobody gave a crap about what women might care about, and considering that this was before women even were able to vote.

And my problem with all that is - WE’RE NOT IN THE LATE 1700s ANYMORE!!!!!!!! And things CHANGE! And if the Constitution is to be regarded as a living document (as I’ve heard it frequently described), then seems to me it must reflect the time it’s living IN.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. It's Much Worse Than That, Calimary

The originalists are not true literalists, despite their claims to be.
They extend to using contemporaneous writings & speeches to infer what the founders were thinking when the wrote the Constitution.
So, they interpret the LITERAL words of the document by imagining they can read the minds of people dead at least 200 years.
We need them, apparently, to interpret a document they say is not subject to interpretation.
It's a lazy & vacuous intellectual construct.

[calimary]

40. Hah! Real life thought police.

[SYFROYH]

12. This rhetoric of an unfettered right to carry whatever and whenever is malarkey

Shifting NY to a shall-issue state is still a lot of regulation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed that the question before the court is limited to the constitutionality of the New York permitting regime. He asked Clement whether his clients would object to the “shall issue” regimes used in other states, under which authorities are required to issue a carry permit as long as an applicant satisfies basic requirements such as a background check and firearms training. Clement acknowledged that, as a general matter, they would not object. “We’d like what they’re having,” he said.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/majority-of-court-appears-dubious-of-new-york-gun-control-law-but-justices-mull-narrow-ruling/

[NullTuples]

13. Justice Kavnaugh also stressed that Roe was settled law. Republican Justices lie.

[calimary]

34. And that's the takeaway. Something we need to get very loud about,

And as frequently as possible!

Repeat, repeat, repeat! BECAUSE it’s necessary!

[llashram]

14. of course the SC will

the RW wants unfettered access to any and all weapons for when they try to take over our democracy again... it is simple as that in my book this court will be the death of our democracy unless our leadership does something about it.

[UTUSN]

15. K&R

[lastlib]

17. The Wild West is soon to be the entire nation.

We will soon be the United States of Somalia.

[aggiesal]

18. I posted this on Twitter ...

This was posted on DU recently.

[LymphocyteLover]

20. sadly a timeless classic

[calimary]

35. Sadly indeed.

This isn’t a country. It’s a fucking armed camp!

[LymphocyteLover]

19. we really really really need to amend the 2nd amendment

[SunSeeker]

22. The 2nd Amendment was fine until Scalia's 1987 Heller decision intentionally misread it.

The 2nd Amendment was put in to allow for organized militias (what is now the National Guard) so that we didn't have standing armies. Our founding fathers saw standing armies as a threat to democracy, fearing a military coup d'etat. It had nothing to do with a personal right to own guns. Guns are not even mentioned. The Heller decision threw away over 100 years of precedent and historical understanding to create a "right" out of thin air. The Stevens dissent in Heller lays it all out.

[LymphocyteLover]

32. Yes. It's such a mess. Every day what conservatism has brought to this country makes me scream.

[SunSeeker]

37. +1

[rickford66]

23. How about properly interpreting it ?

[SunSeeker]

28. Exactly. If 1973's Roe decision can be overturned, so can 1987's Heller decision. nt

[Novara]

30. +1

[LymphocyteLover]

31. I'm happy with that, yes. I suppose getting a better SCOTUS to review Heller might be easier than

amending the constitution, but I'm not sure.

[usaf-vet]

24. My memory might be slipping. I seem to remember the NRA NOT allowing guns in their national.....

....meeting? One in the last decade?

Am I losing it?

[SunSeeker]

38. You are not losing your mind.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/01/607054795/nra-bans-guns-during-convention-speech-by-president-vice-president

[world wide wally]

25. Thanks to the most corrupt President in our history, we now have the most corrupt Supreme Court

in our history

[Cha]

36. And, the Senate Voted to Protect theses

Fuckers that are killing our People!

💙💛