New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. New York City

"What other constitutional right has to meet such a standard? Can the government take away the freedom of religion from people who can’t prove they really need their faith? How about someone’s freedom of speech or their right to due process under the law?"

DC vs Heller


The article makes a good point.

These limits are being pushed on purpose, and when we stop pushing back, they know where that line is when its time to be crossed.

or their right to due process under the law?

That was taken away with Barry's EO that a US citizen can be droned anywhere in the world . Thus doing away with the need for Habeas Corpus

a reply to: ADVISOR

www.heritage.org... GgFRudc7kcT3LOsw here is a Link to go with your OP for ya

The Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases raised many more questions to be explored in subsequent litigation: What types of firearms, ammunition, and magazines may states prohibit, if any? Does the right to “bear” firearms extend beyond the home? Can states require applicants for a concealed carry permit to show a “good cause” or “justifiable need”? What standard of review applies to regulations of firearms—rational basis, intermediate, or strict scrutiny? Or, as then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh suggested in 2011, should courts throw out these balancing tests and “assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition”? Needless to say, it’s well past time for the Supreme Court to provide more guidance on these issues. Indeed, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch chastised their colleagues in 2017 when the Supreme Court declined to hear Peruta v. California, a case challenging California’s “good cause” restrictions on concealed carry permits. Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, wrote a dissent from the denial of review, noting that it was extremely improbable that “the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.” Thomas pointed out that although the justices had entertained 35 First Amendment cases and 25 Fourth Amendment cases since 2010, they repeatedly had turned away Second Amendment challenges. He called this “inexcusable … given how much less developed [the Supreme Court’s] jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment.”

so hopefully the SCOTUS keeps hearing more gun cases and keeps their rulings in line with the US Constitution and we can finally start striking down the various Local laws that infringe upon it

here are a few other cases that may make their way to scotus on guns

gunowners.org... the GOA is challenging the national firearms act in relations to suppressors

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy’s case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy’s appeal from the district court. Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

they are also suing President Trump over the bump stock ban so they seem to be bringing more challenges then the NRA these days bearingarms.com...

GOA Files Suit Against ATF’s Illegal and Unconstitutional Bump Stock Ban Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its Foundation (GOF) filed suit today against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) for their regulations on bump stocks. Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America said, “Our suit challenges the legality of ATF’s action and asks for an injunction to stop enforcement of the regulations. “These dangerous regulations can go much farther than just bump stocks. The goal of the anti-gun left is, ultimately, not just banning bump stocks, but, rather, putting ‘points on the board’ toward its goal of banning civilian ownership of all firearms.” The suit is filed strategically in the Western District of Michigan, and GOA is joined by other pro-gun groups and individuals. “Not coincidentally, Michigan is located within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals — a circuit which is not only very pro-gun, but also has been more skeptical of illegal government regulatory actions than many other circuits in the country,” Pratt stated.

so lets hope we can get some more delicious rulings to start rolling back the gun laws so many here and in this nation have a problem with

Or recently case in NY, prove your need for abortion, oh no can't have that it's a right after all!

Ironically 2nd is ONLY amendment with reinforced wording "shall not be infringed" it's very clear that framers attached great importance to 2nd over all others.

Just as treasonous anti-constitutionalist elements seem to attach great import in defying and subborning it.

More and more as moral fabric tears away and promises mean nothing I see need to make it felonious for office holders to violate oath of office which holds promise to support and defend constitution.

That'd go long way to halting obviously unconstitutional legislation.

Right now each everytime legislative bodies pass crap similar to NY gun law and public is forced into decade of rights usurpation as courts decide the obvious whilst finding justifications made out of thin air to accommodate flavor of day laws based on partisanship.

Should be felony to violate oath, nip in bud before it's problem to law abiding citizens.

Easy fix from Article 4, Section 2 “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Several States allow Constitutional Carry, even more allow permitless open carry. Even Illinois allows for concealed carry if unloaded and enclosed in a case (fanny pack carry). So a zippered coat pocket might qualify there.

a reply to: ADVISOR


Damn right ADVISOR Great PSA

That is why patriots should always be ready to give up everything on the drop of a dime to defend the Constitution from government using any means necessary to ensure its primacy over government interests/needs/continuity.

They have no right or legal authority to engage in such overtly criminal behavior

I just hope all the traitors get what they deserve and I won't be coy or suspenseful about what it is I believe they deserve: blindfolds, cigarettes and a firing squad. Of course that won't happen, because many Americans have lost their way and have apparently forgotten what it means to make an example of someone and throw the book at them as a deterrent.