Because I follow a great blog called SCOTUSBlog, I get notices of the cases which might or will appear before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Today, I spotted this one. Two reasons why it grabbed me. First, it was a gun case in which two men objected because they couldn’t get licenses to carry guns openly on the street. Since we all know how pathological this, uh, movement is — I’m not going to mention inadequate phalluses today — I had to read the summary here written by John Elwood, who covers SCOTUS for the blog.<\/p>\n
Then I saw another reason to pay attention to this case: these male creatures want to brandish their guns in the streets of my state.<\/em><\/p>\n It’s a clear, well-written description. The utterly bizarre arguments about the Second Amendment, and how it gives them the right to lug around those absurd cannons as do people in other states — people who are compelled to show us how dumb and crazy they are whenever they’re out of their homes…<\/p>\n So, before you read this, let me yet again lay out the entire Second Amendment for all to see, so you can compare its language to the argument in this case. (And then we can all sit around and clench our teeth over how many Justices are corrupt or intellectually limited enough to agree with these guys.)<\/p>\n The Second Amendment:<\/p>\n A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<\/em><\/p>\n Re the gun case. Feel free to enjoy (if bitterly) their argument about what the Second Amendment says. And why New York State is wrong.<\/p>\n In District of Columbia v. Heller<\/a>, the court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual\u2019s right to possess firearms at home. Heller\u00a0left unresolved the extent of Second Amendment protections outside the home. In\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett<\/a>, 20-843<\/a>, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for New York licenses to carry firearms outside the home. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had \u201cfailed to show \u2018proper cause\u2019 to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished [them] from the general public.\u201d Nash, Koch and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the house for self-defense, and they say that the state abridges \u201ca right that the Constitution guarantees to all \u2018the people\u2019\u201d when carrying a firearm for self-defense is \u201cdeemed a crime unless one can preemptively convince a state official that she enjoys an especially good reason for wanting<\/a>\u201d to do so.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Because I follow a great blog called SCOTUSBlog, I get notices of the cases which might or will appear before the Supreme Court. Today, I spotted this one. Two reasons why it grabbed me. First, it was a gun case … Continue reading