Thursday, June 23, 2022





Mr. Justice Thomas for the Court, with concurrent opinions by Alito, Kavanagh, and Barrett.

Dissent by Breyer

Takeaway quote, Thomas' summation:

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense. 

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered."

Stock tip: Go long on Depends™. At least 9 state legislatures will now be sh*tting their pants. 

Update: I didn't have time to gloss over Alito's concurrent opinion, but Mike at Cold Fury did. Alito delivered the Mother of All Spankings on Breyer's headless chicken pearl-clutching case of the vapors.

For the TL;DR version, I leave this video, as the most succinct summary of Alito's remarks: 

We also join Mike in wishing Mr. Justice Thomas a Happy Birthday the very day this opinion was released:


Survivormann99 said...

How sweet it is to see Libs melting down over this decision. Stay tuned. The domino effect of this decision when applied to other cases and related gun issues will be even sweeter.

Dan said...

How many troops does the SCOTUS have to enforce this ruling? The states that hate 2A rights will continue to violate them knowing nothing will happen to them for doing so.

Jeff McPhate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ole Grump said...

The enforcement of this opinion will devolve to civil suites brought in federal courts with punitive awards in the millions. After a short while the states will revert to prohibition in "sensitive" locations. This will then generate a new series of appeals, etc etc.

Grandfather told me not to carry a gun in a bank, a bar or before the bar. I think that is about all you need.

Mike-SMO said...

The "P.S." by Alito was strange. He musta smelled a rat.

Robin Datta said...

The muthas keep saying that is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 'TAIN'T a constitutional right. 'Twas a right when the first proto-human picked up the first stick or stone to use as a weapon. It is a pre-constitutional right by several million years, and the constitution merely recognises this right, and DOES NOT bestow it.

Anonymous said...

It's a start.

Bikermailman said...

Here is how we got to 1861. Rulings that no one will carry out, and no one cares about.

Anonymous said...

Awesome news. Am getting whip lash from this and hearing U.S. Congress debating how much self defense Americans are allowed to have. Like two different worlds colliding.

Virginia Granny said...

The Supremes said nothing about how much a state can charge to process the CCP. In my county it's $45 to cover court costs - which I think is outrageous for just signing a piece of paper - but NY and CA can easily charge thousands. That's a court case waiting to happen, and might lead to Constitutional Carry nation-wide. We can only hope.