Before the verdict, I read the charges carefully. Yes, I said at each one. He’s guilty. He must be guilty of at least one or two. Must be.<\/p>\n
It occurred to me my rage and mourning are evidence that I’m not a cynic. I do believe in jury deliberations. I believe in juries.<\/p>\n
My mind traveled to the Supreme Court hearing on a scary New York gun case.<\/a> What’s particularly scary is this SCOTUS decided to hear it. The case itself is, to me, nuts. From SCOTUSBlog:<\/p>\n This article was updated on Nov. 3 at 5:15 p.m.<\/em><\/p>\n When Wednesday\u2019s oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/a> drew to a close after roughly two hours of debate, it seemed likely that New York\u2019s 108-year-old handgun-licensing law is in jeopardy. But the justices\u2019 eventual ruling might be a narrow one focused on the New York law (and others like it), saving broader questions on the right to carry a gun outside the home for later.<\/em><\/p>\n The law requires anyone who wants a license to carry a concealed handgun to show \u201cproper cause\u201d for the license. Courts in New York have defined \u201cproper cause\u201d to require applicants to show a special need to defend themselves, rather than simply wanting to protect themselves or their property.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Representing the challengers in the case, a gun-rights advocacy group and two men whose applications for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses were denied, lawyer Paul Clement told the justices that the text of the Second Amendment enshrines a right to bear arms, and the history and tradition of the United States confirm that the text protects an individual right to carry a gun for self-defense.<\/em><\/p>\n Clement’s argument is specious; that’s not what the text of the Second Amendment says:<\/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.<\/strong><\/p>\n My state, New York, has long applied the “well regulated” mandate to its gun laws.<\/p>\n After the Rittenhouse verdict, I’m wondering whether John Roberts will actually allow the court upon which his name sits to go entirely Kenosha on us. Or will he be able to corral the Sick Six into agreeing that states are sovereign, per the Tenth Amendment, and do have the individual right to establish regulations even on weapons?<\/p>\n Other than that, I believe we’ll have to reach a sort of SCOTUS nullification here in New York. I’m trusting my City Council, Mayor, Governor and state legislature are working now on laws to shred a disastrous SCOTUS decision.<\/p>\n No way will I find it OK to encounter white supremacists at New York City rallies and protests, lugging their cannons around with impunity.<\/p>\n I don’t believe any of my fellow New Yorkers will find it OK, either.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Before the verdict, I read the charges carefully. Yes, I said at each one. He’s guilty. He must be guilty of at least one or two. Must be. It occurred to me my rage and mourning are evidence that I’m … Continue reading