In the USA, a decent citizen can carry a gun for self-defense

You could argue that any law that is struck down by a Court "negates the will of the people." If the "will of the people" was the standard, no laws passed by an elected legislature would ever be un-Constitutional. We wouldn't even need courts to check whether laws were Constitutional.

The SCOTUS in NY State Rifle didn't invent a right regarding guns (arms) for self-defense, any more than SCOTUS' Texas v. Johnson invented a right to free speech for disagreeable expressions of an idea. The rights are express in the Constitution.

The SCOTUS in NY State Rifle did not "only cite previous regulation they do like and make up excuses as to why regulations they don't like it not relevant." Your first clause is inconsistent with your second. Furthermore, that's just your spin ("make up excuses") on portions of the opinion that I'll bet you didn't read. Which parts of the 62 PDF pages of analysis in NY State Rifle are "made up excuses" as you stated they are?

Everyone who believes NY State Rifle was legally flawed should keep in mind that the Respondents in the case "agree[d] that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense." This case was only about whether a law-abiding citizen could be required to further show a personal and special need on top of that Constitutionally guaranteed right. As NY State Rifle said quite reasonably "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."

The same SC that decided Americans should be able to kill one another with guns has decided life in the womb is sacred. The irony.

Stop with the hyperbole. The right to keep and bear arms is all about defense and as a deterrent for a government to try to oppress their own people. The SC ruling on the New York gun law is about eliminating subjective infringement of a persons right to carry their firearm. No gun laws were created and New York can still require people to apply for a concealed carry permit, they just eliminated the subjective aspect of a court official being able to deny a law abiding citizen the right to concealed carry after having satisfied the appropriate criteria.

The right to keep and bear arms is expressly written into the constitution. Show me where the right to an abortion Is clearly written. You can’t. Abortion as a constitutional right was loosely, and poorly, reasoned as a right to privacy. most people will tell you that they knew the ruling was shaky at best and would always be open to repeal.

So when does a life become sacred in your opinion? What’s the difference between a baby who is just born compared to the day before they were born?

Unfortunately, most people here are using emotions to frame their arguments. I doubt any of them have actually taken time to read any of the ruling or concurring opinions. Justice Alito does a great job dismissing the dissenting opinions and goes to great lengths to show that this ruling has no bearing on other gun legislation. It was simply a ruling that New York and the 6 other states under “May Issue” concealed permit laws will have to change to “Shall-issue” if the applicant satisfies all requirements. The subjective part of the process was unconstitutional and was appropriately struck down.

What if a New York court official decided he wouldn’t allow any person of color a concealed carry permit? Or maybe they decided no woman should have one, or any member of the LGBTQ community? I guarantee you people would have be in an uproar about getting the law changed. That subjectivity has no place when dealing with constitutional rights. It’s just a shame that people can’t see past the outrage mob to think logically about this stuff.

lol you're the one so scared they have to carry a gun everywhere. Talk about emotion. I just need my brain to get out of trouble. Sorry you are lacking and need an "equalizer"

I didn’t feel that need until the Covid riots and the lack of prosecutorial effort to keep violent criminals locked up. If the government won’t take the minimum steps to keep violent offenders behind bars, why should I not take a bare minimum effort to protect myself? It’s not fear, it’s just choosing to be prepared for new threats that have arisen due to poor leadership amongst liberal politicians.

A 9 year old girl was indiscriminately shot and killed by rioters because her dad made a wrong turn. They were rioting because a violent criminal was out of jail on bond, a small amount of bond, and was killed by police after he attacked the police officers.

The beauty of this country is that no one is making you carry a firearm and no one is preventing me from carrying one if I choose to do so. And that’s how it should be, considering the constitution.

Is a firearm not an equalizer for a smaller female when confronted with a large male who has his mind set on raping her?

Is a firearm not an equalizer if confronted with multiple assailants?

Not being snarky, I really want an answer? Seems very straightforward to me.

it's not the only equalizer but it is BY FAR the most dangerous. You have demonstrated your failure of imagination, john.

It’s not the only equalizer, but it is the most effective. The CDC study that Obama had them complete proved that as fact.

My imagination isn’t going to help if a group of people decide they want to do harm to me. Plenty of evidence that a firearm will help, though.

Plenty of concealed carry permit holders NEVER have to brandish their firearm, but when most do so, the criminal ends up injured, dead, or arrested.

Why you would want to strip people of their constitutional rights is a bit perplexing. As I said earlier, no one is making you own or carry a firearm.

Responsible HCP holders aren't going to do this. In most states, brandishing a firearm can be considered aggravated assault, which in turn can be punishable as a felony. One of the things you are taught in HCP classes is never to brandish a firearm.

A LOT of very bad things can happen to you if you brandish a firearm, even in justified situations. It's covered in legal armed defense classes.

In my personal experience, I became LESS confrontational when I started carrying a handgun. You don't want to escalate a situation. You don't want the prosecution to point out that YOU escalated the situation. You don't want to be detained for questioning and have to hire a lawyer. You don't want to be sued by the POS's survivors because you shot little Jimmy who only wanted your wallet. If you are sued, your legal defense can take up to two years and cost over $300,000.

you are ruled by emotion yet you chide others about "emotion". Your argument are emotional (i.e. claiming we want women to be assaulted).

gun owners like yourself have historically shown then are likely to use guns prematurely, use them to escalate situations (like road rage), use them to harm members of their family, and carry a run increases the likelihood of it being stolen.

I choose to live in a state in which we have democratically elected leaders who want to do the will of the people and regulate guns. SCOTUS denied that to me.

because we all have to live with the deadly consequences of your lack of balls.

That's great for you and I'm happy to see you are responsible but anecdotes don't prove a rule. Who cares about your experience when the fact is more guns means more people are likely to use them (just look at road rage shooting which are way up), jurisprudence is become more friendly to guns owners allowing them more latitude.

No they didn’t. Nothing in New York, or the 6 other “may issue”states, is changing EXCEPT they can no longer SUBJECTIVELY discriminate on those who have ALREADY gone through the already established gun legislation. Please read the ruling. These states will have to go from “may issue” to “shall-issue”. These 7 states were unconstitutionally restricting their citizens rights to obtain a concealed carry permit. And what’s worse, is they were doing it subjectively. There was no set criteria in place. If the judge felt you didn’t make a strong enough case, you didn’t get your permit. It’s about time it changed.

But the US founding fathers still did some incredible, ground-breaking things with respect to freedom, civil rights, enlightenment, ordered liberty (e.g., First , Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendments).

Reading is fundamental. I was responding to the post above. The founders of the United States of America did not do anything ground breaking is regards to freedom, civil rights, enlightenment or ordered liberty....that is if you are only talking about white male land owners. Everyone else didn't have these liberties. You know this you complete POS.

I think most historians consider the US Constitution to be a very important document with respect to Enlightenment ideas, and the expansion of freedoms, civil liberties, civil rights, and the great Western Democracies that exist today. Some very knowledgeable and persuasive people, like Christopher Hitchens for example, have said the US Constitution is the most important document in world history. The US Constitution has certainly been used as a model around the world in countries trying to establish democracies and civil rights/liberties and freedoms.

I think its hard to argue that a country founded in the late 1700s on ideas like the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments that I keep raising (and many more ideas in the Constitution) was not ground-breaking (or similar adjectives) with respect to freedom, civil rights/liberties, enlightenment, ordered liberty. Do you have other constitutions/governing documents or even political commentaries that you believe deserve such characterizations?

the fiction continues. The act of all judgment is subjective. Are you so naive to think that the gov't doesn't subjectively prosecute crimes? The people of NYC decided to give representative of the people the power to judge who can carry a gun. They people of NYC decided that being scared doesn't cut it. The two people had to show a compelling reason to carry. They did not because they could not. They, like you, are scared little man-babies with rambo fantasies. They, like you, are too weak and stupid to avoid gun use. You know it, I know it.

There was no constitutional right to concealed carry until Heller. none. It was invented by the Federalist Society and the NRA. There is nothing in 2A that mentioned self-defense.

Radical Leftys want a “New System” in America because the Constitution is not perfect which basically means starting over again. Radical groups from the 1960s Far Left through 2022 have not thought it through and plan to just wing it. They claim Socialism, which isn’t Denmark but Venezuela, is better than Capitalism and they are beyond naïve and simply ignorant.

Hitchens was correct and only someone who hasn’t lived in another country where Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, etc aren’t guaranteed or citizens don’t have Constitutional protections like the 4th & 5th can scream that America is Evil, Racist and Doomed.

You can believe that if you’d like. The truth of the matter, and all that matters, is a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling disagrees with you.

26 states have constitutional carry now. 7 states had an unnecessary restriction for gun owners trying to get a concealed carry permit.

you’ve resorted to insults in your posts because you are the weak one here. Weak minded and likely physically weak as well. To assume anyone who chooses to carry a firearm is weak is the same as calling all people of a different political party evil. It’s what weak minded people do to avoid having to think critically about a topic. Try expanding your horizons