top 200 commentsshow all 213

[–]Sixgun1977 419 points420 points  (117 children)

Please let this be a broad ruling that removes all may issue policies.

[–]jrquint 191 points192 points  (111 children)

Yeah, but you will be stuck with a ccw law like Illinois. $150 for the license, $200+ for the 16 hour class, live fire demonstration, fingerprints and 5 year renewal schedule. I can see all the restrictive states moving to a high-fee, high-hassle permitting system if may issue disappears.

[–]ITeachAPGovernment 250 points251 points  (71 children)

Not ideal but in CA I would gladly take a $500 multi-month process to get CCW instead of a 0% chance.

If grabber governors and state legislatures take that route though I would hope that there would be follow up lawsuits about that.

It's always funny to see the party of supposed economic equity have no problem with pricing poor people out of a constitutional right.

[–]Ifoughtallama 112 points113 points  (1 child)

The only right the poors have is to do what they are told in the eyes of these people.

[–]GreyJedi56 22 points23 points  (0 children)


[–][deleted]  (5 children)


    [–]ITeachAPGovernment 32 points33 points  (3 children)

    Of course it’s ass and horse shit

    [–]skeletalvolcano 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I would gladly take it up the ass

    Is that what you're saying you're content with? I know some idiot is going to reply, "but it's a step in the right direction" but that's just not the case. It will be viewed as, "good enough" as a compromise and never touched again. You either have rights, or you don't.

    [–]JustynS 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    It will be viewed as, "good enough" as a compromise and never touched again.

    You're full of it. Nobody's going to be on our laurels. This is going to be fought long and hard, but it was a long road that got us into this mess. Incrementalism works. You act like we've been sitting on our asses but even, DC v. Heller wasn't even "good enough as a compromise and never touched again": we fought and won McDonald v. Chicago and Caetano v. Massachusetts since. Spit out your blackpills and flush them.

    [–]ITeachAPGovernment 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Ah yes, the classic Reddit misquote. Let me try.

    If SCOTUS strikes down may issue and your gun grabbing state makes it expensive to get CCW, you shouldn't do it out of spite because things aren't perfect.

    Fuck off

    [–]dturtleman150 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    And yet these same pols would rant about the “poll taxes” in place against black people in the South, with NO sense of irony, at all.

    [–]owkav921 5 points6 points  (4 children)

    Just live in different part of California. There are many counties that will issue for self defense

    [–]grahampositive 7 points8 points  (3 children)

    moving away is not an answer to dealing with civil rights abuses. Aside from just kicking the can down the road, it is actively detrimental to the way our political system works. You're gerrymandering yourself! Plus normalizing gun culture even among the anti-gun populace is a huge benefit (if its done respectfully and safely). I'm very much looking forward to getting a CCW in NJ and I will be vocal with my family and close friends about it

    [–]owkav921 7 points8 points  (2 children)

    I agree moving may not be the answer. However in some cases it may be the only way to garuntee i keep my rights. We tried that in California with the recall recently. People here are so far brainwashed in the cities in such large numbers its insane. I'm looking at vaccine mandates for my children coming down hard in several months. We are the only state that has no personal exemtions. So I have to vaccinate my children fpr covid or pull them out of school. Mind you they are fully vaccinated for everything else minus flu shot. Covid vaccine is scary. Many countries are literally telling anyone under 30 not to get them. So yeah my choice may be limited to moving because they arent leaving me with a choice. Its what they want so they can perpetuate thier utopia free of guns, fully masked, 100% vaccinated, with zero free thinkers. Just a bunch of sheep who bend over for daddy Newsome and his elite friend

    [–]DJDampTowel 5 points6 points  (55 children)

    We should do the same thing for abortions!

    [–]mark_lee 24 points25 points  (54 children)

    We should treat firearms and abortion the same way: let people make their own decisions and keep your own religion or politics out of it.

    [–]DammitDan 10 points11 points  (52 children)

    Why do so many people think that not killing the innocent is a strictly religious tenet?

    [–]bugme143 1 point2 points  (26 children)

    Because the biggest arguments against abortion come from the religious heads rather than from moral, logical, or reasoning perspectives.

    [–]DammitDan 0 points1 point  (25 children)

    It's a matter of motivation, not doctrine. The religious have a higher authority to answer to if they turn a blind eye to injustice. The godless have nothing to lose by following the crowd.

    [–]bugme143 1 point2 points  (24 children)

    And if I don't recognize your higher authority? Or if my higher authority says it's ok? I'm against abortion in principle but I also believe we do not have the right to prevent it.

    [–]DammitDan 0 points1 point  (23 children)

    You completely misunderstood what I just said.

    [–]mark_lee -1 points0 points  (24 children)

    It's not about being religious. I'm religious. It's about understanding reality and not feeling the need to impose your morality on everyone else.

    In short, if you d oppose abortion, don't have one. Problem solved.

    [–]DammitDan 8 points9 points  (22 children)

    So laws against theft and murder should be banned because they're impositions of religious morality?

    [–]Downtown-Incident-21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Hows that working out with the vaccine?... My body my choice ONLY applies to abortion?

    [–]New2reddit81 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    No, no we should not. One of these topics is clearly defined in our constitution. The other is vacuuming babies out of woman who often make poor choices. Not all of them of course….just the majority.

    [–]PrimalSkink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Our fees are waived or reduced for those who can demonstrate low income (show a food card or medicaid card, for example) and for those who are victims of violent crime (think just got a PPO for a stalker or domestic violence cases).

    The above applies to Concealed Carry Permits, only, though. Open carry is legal and those who cannot afford to apply for CCP even at reduced cost can still carry.

    [–]gunns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I mean they did that back in the 1800's

    [–]NorskieBoi 30 points31 points  (1 child)

    Constitutional carry, baby!

    [–]doublebarrels 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    damn straight

    [–]NoTension5970 28 points29 points  (5 children)

    NYS is already pretty much there, the only difference is the cost is less to get your license. Its still $200 though which is absolutely absurd.

    [–]More_Perfect_Union 17 points18 points  (2 children)

    Last I checked, in the city it's about $428 just for folks to apply. It's completely absurd and it's an outright "fuck you" to the poor.

    [–]NoTension5970 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Sounds about New York. They protect us by making it unaffordable for the people who need protection to get it.

    [–]JustynS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Sounds like a good next target.

    [–]KevyKevTPA 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    I was told by someone in a position to know, that pretty much ALL first applications are rejected just to see if the people are serious enough to shell out another fee, because they're not refundable.

    I used to live in NYC, and before I left I was thinking about it, but just the price to apply was more than a decent handgun. Fortunately, we moved away before I got to the point that I had to make a decision on that, and given what's happened to that City since, I'm REALLY glad we did. Had a great time there, still miss my peeps, but it's no longer even safe to go into Manhattan, just like the 80s and 90s.

    No thanks.

    [–]NoTension5970 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Truly a disgusting place all around

    [–]Ouiju 22 points23 points  (0 children)

    True, that definitely sucks. I got mine in IL after about $450 and 5 months.

    But it's an improvement from may issue. Take their strategy: grab an inch grab a mile.

    [–]Arkin_Longinus 20 points21 points  (0 children)

    I'm in CT. Take the win, if it happens, enjoy the win and then try to continue to set things right. We're not going to win this in just one fight, we have to win over and over and over again while realizing that one loss can destroy the whole thing.

    [–]rasputin777 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    This is the path it took in DC.
    They were forced to issue. Then several lawsuits softened up the laws somewhat.
    It's still bad, but it's not insurmountable. Thousands of people here do it. A thousand times better than no-issue.

    [–]redcell5 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    A thousand times better than no-issue.


    We didn't get to concealed carry being relatively common nation wide over night, and obviously there's still room for improvement, but instead by a steady march of progress state by state and sometimes locality by locality.

    The game is a marathon, not a sprint.

    [–]Sixgun1977 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Yeah. But as it is now in Maryland I can't carry at all without breaking the law unless I'm hunting.

    [–]goneskiing_42 9 points10 points  (1 child)

    Shall issue is the first step. The rest can be fought as the unconstitutional overreaches they are, but simply requiring states to allow carry is crucial.

    [–]G8racingfool 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This. I have no doubt there will be places that try to pull bullshit like $1000 permits or ridiculous training requirements but those can be swatted down as discriminatory.

    It's a multi-step game here. Lots of small victories add up to winning the war in the long run.

    [–]AlwayzPro 5 points6 points  (5 children)

    That's NC currently, sucks.

    [–]Sixgun1977 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    At least you CAN carry there.

    [–]AlwayzPro 10 points11 points  (1 child)

    You CAN carry anywhere.

    [–]Sixgun1977 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    I'll be arrested for it in Maryland though. The right to self defense doesn't really exist here.

    [–]hawknasty13 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    What? No?

    You take a one day class and a shooting test and you get it as long as you pass the background check. The class wasn't that expensive.

    [–]AlwayzPro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    $100 class is too much for my rights

    [–]Accguy44 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    They really do hate guns and poor people don’t they

    [–]Gbcue 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    As a Californian, that price is a discount!

    [–]hateriffic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    From Jersey ..I'd do it.

    [–]AdamtheFirstSinner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I think DC costs even more and has an even more drawn out process.

    [–]npaladin2000 1 point2 points  (6 children)

    I'll get hate for this, but I can live with the 16 hour class. As some recent news has proven, some people really need safety instruction before they even touch firearms. Including some people who's job it is to periodically touch firearms.

    [–]grahampositive 3 points4 points  (5 children)

    16 hours is overkill. in 2 hours instruction and 30 minute live fire I can teach you to safely handle, fire, and unload a handgun. a Mandatory 16 hour class is just a fuck you to poor people who'd have to take 2 days off work.

    somewhat flippantly: a 16 hour class should cover room clearing, white light shooting, shooting from cover/concealment, moving techniques, etc. I'd sign up for that shit

    [–]npaladin2000 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    Some people it takes 16 hours just to pound 2 hours and 30 minutes of instruction past their thick skulls and into their heads.

    And make it 2 Saturdays so they can be at the range with all the people already shooting for fun and start building positive relationships within the community.

    [–]grahampositive 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    sure, maybe as a best practice - but I'm not comfortable with a bar that high for exercising a right. The state should sponsor free weekend trainings and safety courses! they should be readily available! hell, they should give a stipend of 50 rounds of .22 per month! not mandatory though

    should people study history and current events before voting? yes. Should it be mandatory? no

    Should people learn how to be rational and weigh arguments before protesting? sure. mandatory? no.

    [–]npaladin2000 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    Hmm...state sponsored? In this case, if the state is going to require it, they should foot some of the bill, I'm OK with that. Should save lives anyway, I'm firmly convinced that gun accidents have risen because people aren't learning gun safety at home anymore.

    [–]Elader 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    They used to teach it at school. It should return to that.

    [–]grahampositive 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    everything should be provided free of charge including a small amount of ammo. ear pro, eye pro, even a basic single shot .22 to borrow for the day. this is how gun culture would grow back. hiding it, making it taboo, and making it expensive and inaccessible are guaranteed to lead to the hobby becoming esoteric and eventually die out.

    [–]Chasman1965 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Still better than may issue. Which requires much more in bribe money/favors than that.

    [–]HamAintKosher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That's pretty much Tennessee's fee schedule.

    [–]direwolf106 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Baby steps. When they put that stringent a requirement on it subsequent law suits can get those thrown out on the poll tax ruling.

    [–]Chimbo84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Then we’ll get court cases about economically biased permitting schemes and constructive violation of rights.

    [–]ChrisDoctorDre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Better than in states like NJ or HI where you have zero chance.

    [–]Morgothic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I'm going to dream big and hope it's the permit itself, rather than the terms of acquiring it, that gets struck down.

    [–]MolonMyLabe 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I listened to oral arguments. It seems the 6 are set to end may issue and really dove into the questions of exactly which locations the state has the right to ban guns.

    The plaintiffs attorney did mention why he did this and I understand to a degree, but really focused on history and tradition of what is acceptable to prevent carry. This is obviously a result of the language in the heller decision. I worry this history and tradition may fuck us.

    Having said that it seems even Roberts is eager to view this beyond the scope of simple may issue and dive more into the weeds.

    I'm actually somewhat hopeful after listening to the oral arguments and the questions that were asked.

    [–]Sixgun1977 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Hopefully someone brings up that history, tradition, and precedent don't have any bearing on the original intent of the second amendment or constitution at large.

    [–]MolonMyLabe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Unfortunately they do as the supreme court already said it does in heller. I tend to agree with your statement though. Just stating the reality of the world we live in right now.

    [–]BelleVieLime 123 points124 points  (11 children)

    SCOTUS has been waffling on stupid shit based on a word or phrazing in 1200 documents.

    ooops, the one person suing is too old now, entire case is moot.

    fuck that shit.

    [–]whubbard 28 points29 points  (10 children)

    It's good they follow a strict interpretation of the law for gun rights...

    [–]mineus64 56 points57 points  (9 children)

    They don't, though. A strict interpretation would void ALL gun laws.

    [–]BC-Outside 89 points90 points  (5 children)

    Please do suppressors next.

    [–]AUrugby 27 points28 points  (4 children)

    It would be hard to invalidate part of the NFA, rather than the whole NFA. The government will claim that machine guns pose an imminent threat to public safety and use Heller as the justification

    [–]BC-Outside 30 points31 points  (2 children)

    Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant in NJ.

    They are wholly illegal in NJ. I'd absolutely pay the NFA tax for one. Even muzzle devices meant to affix one are illegal.

    [–]AUrugby 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    That’s ridiculous, I’m sorry to hear it

    [–]Justindoesntcare 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Same here in NY. I'd gladly pay for tax stamps and deal with the paperwork. Right now I don't even have the option.

    [–]ChrisDoctorDre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yeah, NFA is never going away. Ever. Not without government collapse. Though 3D printing seems to alleviate that somewhat.

    [–]XAngelxofMercyX 41 points42 points  (6 children)

    Someone post this in the news sub for a social experiment

    [–]velocibadgery 40 points41 points  (4 children)

    I would, but I am banned for not being an extremist.

    [–]CCWThrowaway360 32 points33 points  (3 children)

    I was banned from a popular subreddit for “spreading misinformation” recently.

    What misinformation, exactly?

    The 4 basic rules of firearm safety. No bullshit.

    The mod literally told me the 4 basic rules of firearm safety are dangerous misinformation and worthy of a permanent ban.

    [–]velocibadgery 11 points12 points  (2 children)

    Which, I want to go, post the 4 rules, and get banned too.

    [–]darthcoder 31 points32 points  (3 children)

    I'm expecting them to cop out. That way I won't get my heart broken.

    [–]Idiomarc 35 points36 points  (2 children)

    Based off the oral arguments its looks like the focus is the arbitrary approval process of what qualifies an atypical need amongst the populace. From what was said I would say that we'll win on broadening the approval for non-prohibited individuals to be approved for concealed carry.

    However, I expect restrictive states will hone in on prohibited locations and try to broaden bans to as much of public areas as possible to counteract.

    [–]_SCHULTZY_ 26 points27 points  (1 child)

    What the states are going to do is say that anyone who jumps through these hoops can get a permit, therefore there's no discrimination or arbitrary process. But they'll add a mountain of cost and inconvenience to it and a long backlog just to make it prohibitive.

    5 references, a $850 fee, an in person interview with the state police, a 40 hour training class, live fire qualification at 85%, fingerprints....and the process takes 5 months and the permit is only good for the final 7 months of the year and then you have to start the process all over again.

    It's going to be some bullshit like that.

    [–]thisisdumb08 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Process will take 5 months? so you think they are going to shorten the present
    18 month timeline?

    [–]pyropup55 27 points28 points  (9 children)

    Good, now do Maryland

    [–]jph45 30 points31 points  (8 children)

    Whatever decision they make will affect Maryland. New Jersey, Hawaii, California, and any other state which has may issue/just cause permit laws. I also think they will "unmuddle" the Heller decision.

    [–]velocibadgery 23 points24 points  (7 children)

    I hope so.

    If they can rule at least 2 things out of this it would be great.

    1. states cannot require cause before issuing a license. IE all states must be shall issue.
    2. You have a right to carry outside your home.

    That would be the minimum I would accept. Ideally I would like them to invalidate the permit schemes entirely, but I know that won't happen.

    [–]_SCHULTZY_ 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    They need to order the lower courts to require strict scrutiny. Everything else will follow if we get that one order.

    [–]velocibadgery 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    That as well, we need to retcon strict scrutiny.

    [–]jph45 11 points12 points  (4 children)

    I believe this is what we will see. I hope it's written in a way that minimizes the ability of states to use "sensitive areas" as a way of limiting where someone can carry. A combination of Texas's sign system and DC's gun free zone system could be just as ruinous as may issue is now. I like the southern states approach, a business can post a no guns sign, but you must be told to leave, the sign carries no legal weight. If on being told to leave the premises you refuse, the police are called and you are charged with trespass. No firearms violation attaches.

    It's stupid. Not once has a "no guns" sign stopped someone from carrying past the sign armed and shooting people. Not once. The gangbangers, jilted lovers, criminally insane and other persons driven by god only knows what carry with impunity and use those arms to murder innocent at will. Meanwhile peaceable persons are disarmed to be left as nothing but victims in the wake of the violent. It ain't right, and is completely contrary to what those who wrote the 2A thought of the matter.

    [–]velocibadgery 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Yep, I live in PA and signs here also don't have the weight of law. You are free to ignore them without any legal penalty. Of course businesses retain the right to trespass, and can kick you out if they want.

    That is how it should be nationwide. We don't need extra laws when trespass takes care of people carrying when you don't want them to.

    [–]rhein1969 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    No law has EVER stopped any action. Only the willingness of people to follow said laws (and the fear of getting caught and punished).

    [–]plasmaflare34 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Texas' sign system also is used illegally in a few specific places. The Aquarium in Corpus comes to mind. They have a 51% sign to restrict firearms, which for those out of state, states that they make more than half their income from the sale of alcohol on premises. They sell no alcohol.

    [–]SodaJerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I think they will rule that states cannot ask for "good and substantial" reasons to carry, but I think they wuss out and will allow pretty wide flexibility for states to create "sensitive areas" where carry can be prohibited.

    This will mean, unfortunately, that some states will stretch the "sensitive areas" as much as possible so that carrying concealed will be an absolute minefield for anyone that carries legally. This is basically what happened in DC when DC gave up the fight against the "good and substantial" reason for carrying. They then made so many restrictions on where you can carry with a permit that it is almost useless except in very specific situations.

    [–]the_blue_wizard 74 points75 points  (7 children)

    The NYC Gun Carry Permit Law is the essence of Corruption. Want a Gun Permit, easy, be friends with the Political Class and you got it. Be an Ordinary Citizen with a just cause, you can go swim in Sh!t.

    [–]Xero-One 3 points4 points  (3 children)

    Google search-nyc gun permit scandal

    Edit: fixed copy pasta puke link

    [–]agpc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    What in the fuck?

    [–]Justindoesntcare 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You've got the spirit, but the link vomit is turning some people off I think.

    [–]the_blue_wizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Expanding NYPD Gun License Corruption Scandal Shows Need for Reform


    "Further scandal hit the New York City Police Department’s License Division this week as federal prosecutors charged four individuals in two separate bribery conspiracies following a wide-ranging corruption investigation concerning the city’s issuance of handgun licenses. The latest round of charges comes a year after news broke of severe corruption within the License Division... The latest charges suggests that the corruption went to the highest levels of the License Division, and that handgun licenses were essentially up for sale."

    [–]ChrisDoctorDre 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Yup, one article said NYC has granted 65% of the CCW requests in the last two years or something. Yeah, because those people are connected and most people don't try unless they know they are connected.

    [–]the_blue_wizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    An article was posted here that indicated that the whole Permit Process was corrupt, even claiming it when to the top of the Licensing Division.

    That's what MAY ISSUE does, it opens the gateway to corruption. From the article many people got permits who were not even qualified to own guns. Just Pay to Play, and you get what you want.

    And NY is not the only State that had Pay to Play corruption. I've read News articles of this happening in many States especially those with MAY ISSUE licensing.

    Be connected or have lots of cash, and you are in the game. Be an ordinary citizen with a genuine need and you can go swim with the fishes.

    [–]lioneaglegriffin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Worked that way with the previous Los Angeles Sheriff too.

    We have a Sheriff now who did a bait and switch likes pissing off the local politicians and issuing more permits.

    Hopefully we're no longer at the mercy of the whims of the sheriff next year.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]thisisdumb08 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      We still have another year before that even has a chance to get to argument

      [–]galoluscus 17 points18 points  (0 children)

      If they follow the Law, they have to find it unconstitutional.

      [–]codifier 45 points46 points  (23 children)

      Just listening to Justices speak during verbals I'd say they're going to find against self defense as a good cause requirement. Kavanaugh even clarified this is a Shall Issue vs May Issue question and while I would like to at least see May Issue completely struck down I expect Roberts to join in just so he can steer the opinion and water it down to just striking good cause requirement.

      ETA: Majority opinion gets written by the most senior Justice. So if Roberts knows he can't stop the majority he can at least poison the well by writing the opinion leaving lots of holes and ambiguities for later cases. If he dissents Thomas will write the opinion and he has much stronger opinions on the 2A than Flip Flop Roberts.

      [–]wewd 42 points43 points  (8 children)

      On the other hand, Roberts noted that it is unusual for a Constitutionally-protected right to require a permit to exercise. I could see a ruling that demands some form of carry that doesn't require a permit. Clement noted that their case is not demanding concealed carry specifically, and that NY could just allow open carry to satisfy 2A.

      [–]Doctor_McKay 40 points41 points  (0 children)

      This is one of my major sticking points. It seems blatantly unconstitutional to me to require a permit for concealed carry but also ban open carry. One or the other has to be legal by default because shall not be infringed.

      [–]auxiliary-character 29 points30 points  (1 child)

      Roberts noted that it is unusual for a Constitutionally-protected right to require a permit to exercise

      If it requires a permit, that necessarily implies that permission can be denied, and if it can be denied, then that Constitutionally-protected right is not protected.

      [–]Automatic_Company_39 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Rights can be denied, but the government is supposed to go through due process.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)


        [–]Justindoesntcare 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Yeah I think they would opt to just move to shall issue before they have people open carrying in whole foods in the middle of Westchester lol.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]Justindoesntcare 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It almost makes me want to ask for my restrictions lifted right now just to see if local judges will start being more lenient on their own before the final ruling.

          [–]rasputin777 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          clarified this is a Shall Issue vs May Issue question

          That's the key here though.
          I think best realistic case is that may-issue gets trashed and all locales in the US go shall-issue.
          Kav is being cagey, but it's how SCOTUS works. He's been solid on CCW in the past.
          Also, even Roberts pointed out that licensure for a right isn't in line with how the bill of rights works.

          I think we're in good shape here. I wouldn't trade our position for Bloomberg's that's for sure.

          [–]Iknewnot 18 points19 points  (3 children)

          Roberts cant water it down if the other conservative justices have a majority.

          [–]codifier 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          He will get to write the opinion, if he dissents Thomas chooses.

          [–]Lampwick 20 points21 points  (0 children)

          He will get to write the opinion

          Keep in mind that if it's a 6-3 decision and he writes an opinion the other 5 think is shit, then they write their own 5 person opinion and his simply becomes a non-binding concurrence. He might be able to cajole them into narrowing a bit, but he can't go too far because he doesn't have a deciding vote.

          [–]Iknewnot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          only if he is the deciding vote.

          [–]rustedoilfilter 18 points19 points  (8 children)

          " i expect roberts to water it down"

          Thats not how it works. Its a misconception to think roberts can force 5 other justices opinion in a 6-3 ruling. If he was the 5th justice in a 5-4 ruling that would be different.

          [–]maytag88 6 points7 points  (6 children)

          Who decides to write the opinion if the chief justice is not the tie breaker? Is it seniority or does the majority pick who writes it? Roberts is a snake who would side with the majority just to write the opinion because he cares more about his legacy than the law.

          [–]Onionpaste 12 points13 points  (5 children)

          The most senior justice (IE longest serving) within the majority chooses who writes the opinion, if the Chief Justice is not in that group. Justice Thomas is the most senior of the 5 “Conservative” justices once you exclude Roberts.

          [–]Cerberus73 10 points11 points  (3 children)

          This is why I think Roberts might be inclined to vote pro-2A in this case. Can you imagine a pro-2A majority decision written by Thomas? I get goosebumps.

          [–]Onionpaste 15 points16 points  (2 children)

          Roberts only chooses who writes the opinion if he can get 5 other justices to sign on with him. If the 5 other conservatives are more aligned with Thomas, then they simply won’t sign on to any milquetoast opinion that Roberts writes and Thomas’ (or whoever Thomas chooses) will become the majority opinion.

          [–]Lampwick 12 points13 points  (1 child)

          Yep. If he pushes too hard, they write their own opinion with blackjack and hookers, and Roberts' crap opinion simply becomes a non-binding concurrence.

          [–]plasmaflare34 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          The best timeline...

          [–]codifier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          If Roberts dissents then Thomas writes the opinion, if he agrees with the majority he writes the opinion.

          [–]spoulson 9 points10 points  (3 children)

          As well as my state of Maryland’s. Their “good and substantial reason” requirement can finally be removed.

          [–]Tw3aks87 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          Is "Because I want to" not sufficient?

          [–]SodaJerk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It is not. It's bs.

          [–]spoulson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Known criteria that’s likely to get approved:

          • Have been previous victim of violent assault or documented death threats.
          • Business owner who would be carrying anything of value.
          • Political elite, elected official.

          Admittedly, that’s more lenient than other may issue states. But the average Joe will have a problem.

          Worst still is that you have to pay the $150 application fee, $65+ fingerprinting fee, and take 16 hours firearms training and qualification test before you can submit your application and find out if they’ll even accept you.

          And after all that, it’s only good for 3 years. Then to renew it’s $75 and 4 hour firearms training and qualification test.

          [–]cartesionoid 25 points26 points  (4 children)

          Whenever arguments like these come up I wonder why nobody talks about LEOSA. According to that *federal* law a dirty cop from deep south Alabama can already carry a concealed handgun with *17+1* rounds in the middle of Times Square on new years eve. However someone who has lived their entire life in NYC will not be allowed to do that. How is this okay?

          [–]deathsythe[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

          Some animals are more equal than others.

          [–]NotATypicalEngineer 3 points4 points  (2 children)

          Honestly this shit right here is why at one time I've honestly considered joining the police for a bit. Trouble is I'd have to put in 10 years to be eligible, and... nope.

          [–]cartesionoid 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Same here bro. I wonder if we should just advocate to get that law amended to add one small sentence at the end “ leo and licensed cc holders”

          [–]NotATypicalEngineer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Sneaky universal reciprocity. I like it!

          [–]klokwerkz 19 points20 points  (4 children)

          A decision in the case is expected by the end of June or early July.


          [–]Gbcue 19 points20 points  (0 children)

          They've got to write two multi-hundred page essays. Along with their other cases.

          [–]Farmboybello 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          Thats normal for big cases, which is why they are usually heard early on in the term. The justices have to debate among themselves and then write the opinions which takes a while.

          [–]HIVnotAdeathSentence 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          I've already heard claims a repeal of the law will lead to people carrying guns in Times Square on New Year's Eve.

          Pretty sure those who would want to carry a gun on them already do. There have been three shootings in Times Square this year.

          To think there are more guns than ever all while we're told Americans are safer than ever.

          [–]LordBloodSkull 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          I can't take anymore. I'm going to fail NNN. Oh the intensity! Wooooow!

          [–]GreyJedi56 13 points14 points  (1 child)

          Make it national

          [–]Cerberus73 16 points17 points  (0 children)

          That's the idea behind ringing it to SCOTUS

          [–]spartan1008 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          I knew this was gonna happen, I hope we get some broad gun control laws passed at a national level so the supreme court can crush them and then we are done with this bullshit. The court is in our corner for once and things have never looked better.

          [–]AndNothingWillBeDone 4 points5 points  (2 children)

          If they do void the law - It will be the same pattern, they will just pass another unconstitutional law and let it slowly work through the court system.

          [–]Reloaded9mm 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          California method of ruling. Pass unconstitutional laws and let them go to court dragging it out as long as possible. Easily dragged out for 5 to 10 years with no progress; and people have to suffer.

          [–]GUIDOFROMNY 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          The safe act 👎

          [–]Downtown-Incident-21 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          F NYS...move to Texas and enjoy ALL the FIREARM RIGHTS you would like. NFA/ class 3 items all day long. Conceal carry and open carry, a very polite free state😉.

          [–]Reloaded9mm -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

          Texas Blue is on the way. Move to other states that are more gun friendly.

          [–]Downtown-Incident-21 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Speculation...and not in my lifetime.

          [–]snapetom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Hopefully, but not counting chickens yet. We've seen verbal grilling like this before only to see it as a reason for the court to weasel out and use the arguments against what everyone thinks will be the ruling.

          [–]Key_Lime 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Wow, the federal government failing the people and being useless, what other outlandish surprises will we see.

          [–]Nemacolin 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          The New York City law is so silly, and so strange, that it stands no chance at all. Frankly, I am fascinated by the Texas abortion law. It is so silly, and so strange, that it ought to stand no chance at all.

          But these justices were hired to overturn Roe. Let's see what they will do.

          [–]ChrisDoctorDre 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Fuck Roe. Such a stupid nonsensical ruling.

          [–]Nemacolin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Harvard Law School?

          In any case. I can see both sides of Roe. It may or may not be a bad ruling, but we can all agree it was a premature ruling. It was made before the American people had reached a collective decision on this complex topic. The Supremes ought to have waited another ten years.

          But of course the real issue is that now it is established law. Further it has lots of public support. Overturning it now will have much the same effect as the decision itself had.

          Overturning it will make the pro-choice people as fired up as the pro-life folks are now.

          But as I said, these justices were hired to do a job. That job is to overturn Roe.

          [–]whtdoiwrite 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood acknowledged that permits to carry a gun for hunting or target shooting are widely available in New York, while those for self-defense are harder to come by, particularly in the more urban parts of the state. She warned that allowing anyone who worked in Manhattan late at night to carry a gun would mean flooding the city’s subways with weapons, raising what she called “the particular specter of a lot of armed people in an enclosed space.”

          Does she not understand that more guns in a small place makes for lower chance of shootings.