Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Gun Rights Victory: Supreme Court Tosses New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry

Published

on

Gun Rights Victory: Supreme Court Tosses New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry

#Gun #Rights #Victory #Supreme #Court #Tosses #York #Law #Restricting #Concealed #Carry

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a 100-year-old law in New York that severely restricts obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun.

The ruling marks the first significant Second Amendment decision by the Court in more than a decade.

It also comes as a bipartisan group of Senators (including 14 Republicans) have been working this week to pass a gun control law that includes ‘red flag’ incentives and other restrictions on purchasing firearms.

The existing New York law requires an applicant to show “proper cause” for seeking a license, leaving bureaucrats to decide whether or not the applicant is worthy of exercising their Second Amendment rights. Simply expressing a desire to protect the individual or their property was not enough.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority opinion, states “ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.”

“Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Thomas added.

The conservative justice also used the Fourteenth Amendment in his arguments.

RELATED: After Giving Democrats Enough Gun Control Votes, Cornyn Reportedly Says Immigration Is Next

Liberals Outraged Over Supreme Court’s Concealed Carry Ruling

As you might imagine, liberal reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that New York’s concealed carry restrictions are unconstitutional ranged from the wacky to ‘everybody is going to die.’

On that note, here is Marianne Williamson, author and one-time gadfly Democratic presidential candidate, who surmised: “People will die because of this.”

Williamson also argues this was less about the Second Amendment and more about property rights. Whatever that means.

Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, not exactly known throughout the media industry for his measured and thoughtful remarks, urged extreme measures. 

Like ‘dissolving’ the Supreme Court.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin of ToobinGate fame practically wept as he explained the Supreme Court ruling definitely “expands the Second Amendment right.”

He claimed that the Court wants to make the Second Amendment “a first-class right like the First Amendment.”

It’s unclear what he means by “first-class right,” as if the Second Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment are lesser in importance. There aren’t first-class or second-class rights, only unalienable rights.

Toobin also fretted that the Supreme Court ruling on concealed carry in New York would mean any attempts at gun regulation would be wiped out.

“Any sort of regulation that tells people what kind of gun you can carry and where you can carry it as long as you say you are doing it for self-defense — it is very hard for me to imagine how many of those could be upheld anymore,” Toobin explained.

Then, there was this impressive hot take from Supreme Court lawyer and law professor, Neal Katyal, suggesting the only way for the court to remain consistent is to rule similarly on the “constitutional right to obtain an abortion,” something that doesn’t exist anywhere.

Columnist Auron MacIntyre compiled his own list of the worst left-wing meltdowns to the ruling. Here is a brief smattering of select unhinged reactions:

Advertisement

RELATED: MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Tells Pro-Gun Control British Reporter ‘Go Back to Your Country’

New York Governor Threatens to Return State to a Time of Muskets

Perhaps the worst response to the Supreme Court ruling on New York’s concealed carry law came from the governor of the Empire State herself.

Kathy Hochul threatened to strip New Yorkers of their Second Amendment rights and turn the clock back on guns by restricting everybody to muskets.

“I’m sorry this dark day has come,” a saddened Hochul declared.

“That we’re supposed to go back to what was in place since 1788 when the Constitution of United States America was ratified. And I would like to point out to the Supreme Court justices that the only weapons at that time were muskets,” she added.

“I’m prepared to go back to muskets.”

It’s the kind of comment that, in a sane world, would see Hochul immediately impeached or forced to resign. Threatening law-abiding New Yorkers with having their Second Amendment rights squashed should never be tolerated.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”


Politics

Exclusive: Fed More Concerned About Inflation Than Recession – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Compelling Television

#Fed #Concerned #Inflation #Recession

“There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”

— Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press”

“Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”

— Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report

“Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news and developments.”

— Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report

“The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”

— Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: This Innocent Woman's House Was Destroyed by a SWAT Team. A Jury Says She's Owed $60,000. – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

This Innocent Woman's House Was Destroyed by a SWAT Team. A Jury Says She's Owed $60,000.

#Innocent #Woman039s #House #Destroyed #SWAT #Team #Jury #She039s #Owed

When Vicki Baker cleared out her home in McKinney, Texas, in 2020, she filled two 40-foot dumpsters with her belongings. It wasn’t the way she’d pictured emptying the house as she prepared to begin retirement in Montana. But there was little else to be done with her tear-gas stained items after a SWAT team careened through her fence, detonated explosives to blow her garage door off its hinges, smashed several windows, and drove a BearCat armored vehicle through her front door to apprehend a fugitive that had barricaded himself inside.

A federal jury last week decided that Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 for the trouble. It’s both a controversial and surprising decision. Normally, people like Baker get nothing.

In July 2020, Wesley Little arrived at Baker’s house with a 15-year-old girl he’d kidnapped. Little had previously worked for Baker as a handyman, though she had fired him about a year and a half earlier after her daughter, Deanna Cook, expressed that something may be awry. Cook answered Little at the door that day; having seen him on recent news reports, she left the premises and called the police.

The girl was released unharmed. But Little refused to exit the home, so a SWAT team arrived and began to tear the house down around him in a process known as “shock and awe.”

They then kindly left Baker with the bill. “I’ve lost everything,” she told me in March 2021. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.” Those bills include treatment for stage 3 breast cancer.

Yet the only thing perhaps more absurd than a jury having to force the government’s hand in recompensing her is that Baker almost did not have the privilege to bring her case before one. Federal courts in similar cases have ruled that the government can usurp “police powers” to destroy your property and avoid having to pay it back under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which is supposed to provide a remedy for such circumstances.

After the ordeal, Baker sought that remedy through her home insurance, which stipulated that they are not on the hook if it is the government’s fault. And though the government didn’t deny being at fault, per se, they did deny that Baker was a victim, sending her on her way with a ravaged home, thousands of dollars in destroyed personal possessions, and a dog that went deaf and blind from the chaos that July day.

In November of last year, Baker’s luck began to turn. A federal judge denied the city of McKinney’s motion to dismiss her case. In April, that same jurist, Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, described the interpretation of the law barring Baker from suing as “untenable.” And last week, the jury handed down their ruling. The city may appeal, which will delay any payout.

In coming to his decision, Mazzant invoked another unfortunate case: that of the Lech family, who had their $580,000 home ruined by a SWAT team as they pursued an unrelated shoplifter who broke in. Greenwood Village, Colorado, did more for them than McKinney would do for Baker, forking over all of $5,000. A federal court ruled that the family could not sue, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

Advertisement

“Even though a number of federal courts have gone the wrong way on this issue, they’ve done so with very cursory analysis,” says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm shepherding Baker’s case. He says this new ruling is different and should “be the one that everyone is looking at” as similar situations continue to pop up.

It does not set a precedent, however. “In this case, we put the city claims agent on the stand,” notes Redfern, “and she said, ‘Yep, I denied the claim, and I deny every claim like this, and if this happened tomorrow I would deny it again.’” Unfortunately for people like Vicki Baker, this will continue to be a familiar story.

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: 1/6 Committee Hits Spiraling Trump Again By Subpoenaing Pat Cipollone – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

1/6 Committee Hits Spiraling Trump Again By Subpoenaing Pat Cipollone

#Committee #Hits #Spiraling #Trump #Subpoenaing #Pat #Cipollone

The 1/6 Committee has subpoenaed one of the people who knows the intimate details of Trump’s coup plot, former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.

The AP reported:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection issued a subpoena Wednesday to former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has been linked to meetings in which lawyers debated strategies to overturn former President Donald Trump’s election loss.

The Committee said that it required Cipollone’s testimony after obtaining other evidence about which he was “uniquely positioned to testify.”

Pat Cipollone Can Testify To The Plot To Overturn The Election

According to Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, Cipollone has intimate and wide-ranging details about the plot to overturn the election. Hutchinson testified that Cipollone warned that if Trump went to the Capitol, they would be charged with every crime imaginable.

Trump was already falling apart after Hutchinson’s testimony, and he could be in for a double whammy if his former White House Counsel testifies. The White House Counsel is not a personal lawyer to the president but represents the institutional interests of the Executive Branch.

If Cipollone testifies, it will be the bombshell that will level the rubble that was already smoldering after Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony.

Advertisement

 

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.