https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
They're arming people in advance of November. Prove me wrong.
— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) June 23, 2022
bearister said:
California gun laws targeted by Supreme Court ruling- CalMatters
https://calmatters.org/justice/criminal-justice/2022/06/california-gun-laws-supreme-court/
Prof Charles Weisselberg tells @latimes he fears the decision gives police an incentive to pressure people who refuse to talk. “There will be no penalty for violating Miranda in this way,” he said. “There will be zero incentive for officers to cease questioning.” https://t.co/DmxvmW6jac
— UC Berkeley Law (@BerkeleyLaw) June 23, 2022
bearister said:They're arming people in advance of November. Prove me wrong.
— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) June 23, 2022
The most dangerous thing happening in America today is the weaponization of the Administrative State against the Right. Nothing else comes close. https://t.co/cJzTjBHhJm
— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) June 23, 2022
okaydo said:Prof Charles Weisselberg tells @latimes he fears the decision gives police an incentive to pressure people who refuse to talk. “There will be no penalty for violating Miranda in this way,” he said. “There will be zero incentive for officers to cease questioning.” https://t.co/DmxvmW6jac
— UC Berkeley Law (@BerkeleyLaw) June 23, 2022
THIS MAN IS A NATIONAL TREASURE!!! pic.twitter.com/5LncHmJuIx
— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) June 23, 2022
helltopay1 said:
great victory for the second amendment, fourteenth amendment and common sense. God bless Clarence Thomas . Even Roberts. And Kavanaugh and Barrett need to protect themselves against the crazed mob who threaten them. Great day to be an American..
I've seen this argument made by Toobin and others (crazy how the same side ends up with the same talking points!). This is a patently STUPID argument. The exclusionary rule works quite effectively to discourage Miranda abuses. Most law enforcement care about putting bad people away. Taking action that excludes incriminating evidence and allows criminals to walk the streets is a pretty big deterrent. It also has a chilling effect on offending police officers careers. I would bet a Top Dog that no cop ever in the history of the universe thought "He can't sue me personally, screw Miranda!"okaydo said:Prof Charles Weisselberg tells @latimes he fears the decision gives police an incentive to pressure people who refuse to talk. “There will be no penalty for violating Miranda in this way,” he said. “There will be zero incentive for officers to cease questioning.” https://t.co/DmxvmW6jac
— UC Berkeley Law (@BerkeleyLaw) June 23, 2022
Mischaracterization and I think you know it. SCOTUS said NYs law requiring people to demonstrate a specific need is unC. States can still regulate in this area. For example, a safety class and/or training class would surely be allowed.concordtom said:
Breaking SCOTUS news:
Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??
Please explain.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
tequila4kapp said:Mischaracterization and I think you know it. SCOTUS said NYs law requiring people to demonstrate a specific need is unC. States can still regulate in this area. For example, a safety class and/or training class would surely be allowed.concordtom said:
Breaking SCOTUS news:
Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??
Please explain.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
I live in a Shall Issue state. We also have legalized pot. Opponents of both feared guns and pot would be everywhere and imperil society. Both have been wrong so far. I suspect NY will be just fine
bearister said:
Provide links to first hand accounts of what a moral, ethical an non corrupt individual Clarence Thomas is. I will read them.
“Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. . . . he is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution, about the people who work there — about people.” - Justice Sotomayor pic.twitter.com/Pz4TKWeFi3
— JCN (@judicialnetwork) June 17, 2022
NY was one of 8 (I think) states that only issued concealed carry permits if the applicant could prove they specifically needed one. They are called "show cause" states. The remaining states are "Shall issue" states - the permits are issued after a background check, etc. as a matter of right. 2nd Am advocates would say NY's statute is a pretext for denying CC permits; gun control advocates would say it's a valuable tool to protect the public. SCOTUS said (basically) the right to protect ourselves extends beyond our houses so NY's prohibitive practice was unconstitutional. I have not read the opinion so I can't comment beyond that on what SCOTUS said…I merely observe that my own state doesn't have Armageddon because it is Shall Issue so I tend to think the critics are off baseconcordtom said:No, I'm being genuine.tequila4kapp said:Mischaracterization and I think you know it. SCOTUS said NYs law requiring people to demonstrate a specific need is unC. States can still regulate in this area. For example, a safety class and/or training class would surely be allowed.concordtom said:
Breaking SCOTUS news:
Now everyone gets to carry concealed guns? Because as Clarence Thomas writes, my 2nd Amendment right protects me to have a gun on me at all times??
Please explain.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/major-amendment-case-awaiting-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85391615
I live in a Shall Issue state. We also have legalized pot. Opponents of both feared guns and pot would be everywhere and imperil society. Both have been wrong so far. I suspect NY will be just fine
I don't know what it means.
But I don't think it's good.
tequila4kapp said:concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:concordtom said:
BI merely observe that my own state doesn't have Armageddon because it is Shall Issue so I tend to think the critics are off base
AunBear89 said:
So he knows how to kiss ass and gladhand. Doesn't mean he isn't also a pryck.
— NautPoso 🇮🇪☘️ (@NautPoso) June 24, 2022
Your leftist tears are delicious.AunBear89 said:
Not a surprise that you are a fan of a pryck like him. Birds of a feather…
This isn't about owning libs, only you.AunBear89 said:
Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.
It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.
AunBear89 said:
Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.
It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.
DiabloWags said:AunBear89 said:
Thanks for acknowledging that this has nothing to do with laws or morals or ethics. For you morons it's all about owning the Libs.
It is truly a shame that you are entirely incapable of independent thought.
This is why I know that BearFarce never attended CAL.
He is incapable of independent thought.
He's glued to Faux News 24/7
Just a parrot.
DiabloWags said:
Current SCOTUS continues to perpetuate the greatest hoax upon the American people.
Let's be honest here.
The framers of our Constitution sought to bolster a "well regulated militia"
In a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."
Then, late in the 20th century, after members voted in new militant leadership, the NRA erased from memory its prior findings to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.
Talk about a public relations coup in the history of the United States.
The NRA literally marketed a false, alternative history of guns and gun control in America.
Propagated mainly by attorneys with ties to the gun lobby.
You have repeated this line about a thousand times today. That does not make it true. I don't care to get into a debate about it but you do know there's a whole other body of work and line of reasoning to the opposite conclusion, including but not limited to the Heller decision.DiabloWags said:
Current SCOTUS continues to perpetuate the greatest hoax upon the American people.
Let's be honest here.
The framers of our Constitution sought to bolster a "well regulated militia"
In a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."
Then, late in the 20th century, after members voted in new militant leadership, the NRA erased from memory its prior findings to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.
Talk about a public relations coup in the history of the United States.
The NRA literally marketed a false, alternative history of guns and gun control in America.
Propagated mainly by attorneys with ties to the gun lobby.
tequila4kapp said:
I don't care to get into a debate about it but you do know there's a whole other body of work and line of reasoning to the opposite conclusion, including but not limited to the Heller decision.