The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in the case of Caetano V. Massachusetts suggesting that the 2nd Amendment does not just include firearms available at the time of its writing.
This sounds like a good thing, although I do not know just how good as the case involved a stun gun, not modern AR-type firearms. New York, like Massachusetts, prohibits stun gun possession except by police officers. I assume someone will bring a stun gun lawsuit here which references the Caetano decision at which point we’ll get a better idea of the importance of the ruling.
Rehtorical questions I guess, but:
Did they all acknowledge 2A as an individual right? (Implicitely?)
Did they just apply some kind of “interest balancing” approach / I believe they somehwere “opined” the complaint that Mass placed the interest of disarming the public over the actual public safety interest? (do not have the time to dig into this right now – 3 jobs in – LOL)
This still does not establish a strict scrutiny standard of review.
Who the fuck knows. Its psychotic.
I agree, its not a bad thing.
Thinkin on it, the inference may be that the PRESENT players MIGHT uphold the narrowest interpretation of Heller, ie. a handgun in “common use” for defense in the home. That is not as bad as it could be (and will be if Hillary wins – G-d forbid). And would be a change for some of them. But who knows. Its hard to believe.
Alito refers consistently to the right to bear arms (as opposed to the right to keep arms) through out the decision. What this means of all SCOTUS present frame of 2A mind is anyone’s guess.
BTW, I have a feeling NYS premise handgun permit days are numbered.
They will do anything they possibly can to fuck us, no doubt! Especially if we loose the senate which is possible.