State Reactions to the SCOTUS Ruling Against Discretionary Carry-Permit Laws Range From Compliance to Defiance
Some states promptly eliminated subjective standards, while others refused to recognize the decision's implications.
After the Supreme Court ruled that New York's restrictions on public possession of firearms violated the Second Amendment, state legislators responded by imposing new restrictions. Four days after Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, signed that bill into law, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, announced a strikingly different response to the Court's ruling, saying state police would immediately stop demanding that carry-permit applicants demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" for exercising the right to bear arms.
The stark contrast between New York and Maryland illustrates the range of reactions to the Court's June 23 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. While some states promptly complied with the ruling by eliminating requirements that gave officials broad discretion to deny carry permits, others are either dragging their feet or refusing to acknowledge the import of what the justices said the Constitution demands.
The vast majority of states either do not require permits for carrying firearms in public or have "shall issue" carry-permit laws, meaning that applications generally are approved as long as gun owners meet objective criteria. Prior to Bruen, at least six states had "may issue" carry-permit laws, which give licensing officials broad leeway to reject applications based on subjective standards.
I say "at least six" because these classifications are somewhat contested. In Bruen, the Supreme Court said "only six States…have 'may issue' licensing laws." The U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), by contrast, counts nine, including Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island along with California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. The difference mainly has to do with assessments of how much discretion licensing officials have.
In New York, carry-permit applicants had to show "proper cause," which courts had interpreted to mean more than a general interest in self-defense. In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that such policies are inconsistent with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which extends beyond self-defense in the home, the focus of the Court's landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
New York responded with a law that eliminates the "proper cause" demand but still requires a demonstration of "good moral character," newly defined as "having the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others." To meet that test, applicants must submit at least four character references, along with information about their social media accounts and any other information that is "reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application."
Because of that requirement, New York officials still have broad discretion to reject applications based on their understanding of "good moral character." Furthermore, the inclusion of constitutionally protected online speech as part of that analysis raises potential First Amendment problems: Might an applicant be rejected because he made intemperate political remarks or displayed what an official viewed as unseemly enthusiasm about a newly acquired gun?
The new law also includes a long list of "sensitive locations" where gun possession, even by permit holders, is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Depending on where permit holders live and their daily habits, those sweeping restrictions could make it difficult or impossible for them to actually carry guns for self-defense. That provision is bound to provoke another constitutional challenge.
Here is a rundown of how other states are responding (or not) to Bruen.
California
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, dropped his state's "good cause" requirement for carry permits, but he is backing a bill that would add many new restrictions. That approach is likely to generate more litigation.
"It is the Attorney General's view that the Court's decision renders California's 'good cause' standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional," Bonta wrote in a "legal alert" to local prosecutors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and municipal lawyers the day after the decision in Bruen was announced. "Permitting agencies may no longer require a demonstration of 'good cause' in order to obtain a concealed carry permit." But he added that "the requirement that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional."
It is not clear exactly what that requirement means in practice. The Long Beach, California, law firm Michel & Associates, which specializes in firearm cases, notes that the state "gives broad discretion to issuing authorities in determining whether an applicant has good moral character." Usually, it says, "an applicant is considered to be of good moral character if they pass the required background check and do not have any serious documented instances of poor judgment in their recent past." But it adds that "some issuing authorities may use trivial incidents as a basis for denial."
As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh notes, Bonta suggested that ideological considerations could play a role in the judgment of an applicant's character. Bonta quoted the policy adopted by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (emphasis added): "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction." Bonta also said the assessment could include "social media accounts."
Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, thinks such a wide-ranging inquiry—which could include examining an applicant's opinions for signs of bigotry, criticism of laws he views as unwise or unjust, or even bad-faith argumentation suggesting that he lacks "honesty"—is "clearly unconstitutional." Volokh notes that "the government can't restrict ordinary citizens' actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express."
In a press release the day of the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, Bonta said he was "working with the Governor and the legislature to advance legislation that is both constitutional and will maintain safety for Californians." The bill to which he referred, S.B. 918, is notably different from New York's law in at least one way. Instead of doubling down on the "good moral character" criterion, S.B. 918 would eliminate that requirement along with the "good cause" standard, even though Bonta maintains that the former test is constitutional.
Like New York's law, however, S.B. 918 would prohibit permit holders from carrying guns in a wide range of settings, including government buildings, public transit vehicles and stations, K–12 schools, colleges or universities, health care facilities, bars, restaurants with liquor licenses, public gatherings, playgrounds, parks, athletic facilities, gambling establishments, financial institutions, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, zoos, museums, houses of worship, and any "privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public." There is an exception to that last category if "the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of the building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property."
Those restrictions, like New York's, are begging for a Second Amendment challenge. If a state notionally allows someone to carry a handgun but makes it impractical or legally perilous to do so, that is tantamount to denying him that right.
The bill summary claims that S.B. 918 expands an exception to California's Gun-Free School Zone Act for carry-permit holders. But the language reads to me like a contraction.
Under current law, guns generally are prohibited within 1,000 feet of a K–12 school. That ban does not apply to a permit holder who is "not in, or on the grounds of" a school. Under S.B. 918, the ban does not apply to a permit holder who carries a gun "in an area that is not in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school…or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school."
If not modifies the rest of the sentence, the bill would prohibit permit holders from carrying guns "on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to" school property, which would be a new restriction. The bill also eliminates an exception for unloaded, securely stored handguns in cars, which will complicate life for firearm owners without carry permits, who could be committing felonies by driving through or parking in a school zone.
Connecticut
Although Connecticut is often classified as a "shall issue" state, it requires that a carry-permit applicant be "a suitable person." That vague standard, New Britain lawyer Ralph D. Sherman argues, means that Connecticut, in practice, is a "may issue" state.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, apparently does not see it that way. In a June 23 interview with The Connecticut Mirror, Tong conceded that Bruen "could undermine" his state's regulations. But he promised to defend "some of the strongest gun laws in the nation." If Bruen "leads to an attack on Connecticut's gun laws," he said, "we will be the firewall, and we will do everything we can to protect Connecticut families and children."
Delaware
Delaware requires that a carry-permit applicant demonstrate "good moral character" and "a good reputation for peace and good order." The Washington Post says Delaware's law is "somewhat less stringent" than New York's because it gives licensing officials "less discretion to reject applications." The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a firearms trade group, reports that Delaware officials are taking a "wait and see" approach, meaning the law probably won't be changed without additional litigation.
Hawaii
Hawaii requires that a resident seeking permission to carry a concealed handgun satisfy the county police chief that he represents "an exceptional case" and that he has "reason to fear injury" to his "person or property." The day that Bruen was decided, former Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, a Democrat, suggested those requirements won't be changed until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reconsiders its 2021 decision in Young v. Hawaii, which upheld the state's similarly restrictive rules for openly carrying guns.
Last week, the Supreme Court vacated Young and told the 9th Circuit to reconsider it in light of Bruen. "What would need to happen is some sort of legal action taking place here in one of the courts in Hawaii," Chin told KHON, the Fox affiliate in Honolulu. "As it turns out, there is an existing case that involves Mr. George Young that will probably be impacted by this decision [in Bruen]." The NSSF reports that "Honolulu police say there are no immediate changes to the state's process, but gun rights groups are hinting at litigation."*
Maryland
"Over the course of my administration," Gov. Hogan said on Tuesday, "I have consistently supported the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, while enacting responsible and common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision in New York law pertaining to handgun permitting that is virtually indistinguishable from Maryland law. In light of the ruling and to ensure compliance with the Constitution, I am directing the Maryland State Police to immediately suspend utilization of the 'good and substantial reason' standard when reviewing applications for Wear and Carry Permits. It would be unconstitutional to continue enforcing this provision in state law."
Massachusetts
Last Friday, Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, issued an advisory that said "licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the 'good reason' provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen." Although that case "concerned a New York law," she noted, "the Court specifically identified the 'good reason' provision of a Massachusetts law…as an analogue to New York's proper cause requirement."
Healey added that her state's "suitability" requirement for carry permits is "unaffected by Bruen." Massachusetts requires that an applicant be "a suitable person to possess firearms." A determination of unsuitability is supposed to be based on "reliable and credible information" that the applicant "has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests" he "may create a risk to public safety" or other "factors" indicating such a risk. Like a "good moral character" requirement, that criterion seems to leave considerable room for subjective judgments.
New Jersey
The day after the Bruen decision, Acting Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat, told police and prosecutors that carry-permit applicants should no longer be required to establish a "justifiable need." The ruling "prevents us from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a firearm," he said, "but it does not prevent us from enforcing the other requirements in our law." Those include certification of firearms training and a background check verifying that the applicant is "not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card."
Rhode Island
Under state law, the attorney general "may issue" a carry permit based on "a proper showing of need." As the USCCA explains, the rules are different for carry permits issued by local law enforcement agencies: They "shall issue" a permit "if it appears" that the applicant is "a suitable person to be licensed" and either "has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property" or has another "proper reason" for carrying a handgun.
According to U.S. News & World Report, Rhode Island Gov. Daniel McKee and Attorney General Peter Neronha, both Democrats, "said they would review the Supreme Court decision for its impacts on the state." Neronha "said there are similarities between Rhode Island's law and the one in New York that was struck down, but also important differences between the two states' statutory schemes." The NSSF describes Rhode Island as a "wait and see" state.
*Update, July 12: Last Thursday, Hawaii Attorney General Holly Shikada said a concealed-carry applicant in that state will no longer be required to show he represents "an exceptional case" and has "reason to fear injury" to his "person or property."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know what happened the last time a bunch of states tried to defy the federal government…
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (ebt-03) achieving this I’m ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://dollarspay12.tk
“Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island along with California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.”
This time let ’em go.
Of course, it’s not just being able to carry a gun that is the issue. It’s also being able to use it in self defense
There is a current case in NYC where a store worker was attacked by a would be customer upset that his girlfriend’s card was declined and the worker fought back, stabbing his attacker. It being NYC, of course the worker was arrested and charged with murder.
And it being what it is, the worker’s (Jose Alba) GoFundMe was shut down, since Big Tech also agrees that normal people should not be allowed to defend themselves, only left wing rioters deserve that
Let’s not loosen laws that make it easier to shoot people, please.
Sometimes people need to be shot. Let’s not apply the law unjustly to people who defend their lives, their family’s lives and the lives of those in the community. People have a natural right to self defense, even if people use firearms to do it.
It’s not in the constitution Dariush. That was an invention of Scalia in Heller which overturned 200 years of precedent.
Whatever you say Joe. Reality, history and the Supreme Court say otherwise. You wish everybody lived in Stupid Town with you as the mayor. I’m sure you’ll post something silly and prove me right. Go ahead Joe, do it.
“Natural right”. Are you seriously arguing that people don’t have a right to defend themselves and others (putting aside the gun question for a moment)? And it’s a right that has been recognized in common law and statute for a long long time, not something recently invented by the courts. The 9th amendment is hard to apply, but if there is any right that is obviously covered there, I’d say the right to self defense is one.
I hope those trying to raise money for this poor man’s defense know about http://www.givesendgo.com. They stepped up for the Canadian Trucker Freedom Convoy when this same piece of crap crowd funding sight sought to seize and divert the money elsewhere against donor wishes.
REMEMBER GOFUNDME DID THIS TO AN HONORABLY DISCHARGED MARINE WHO DEFENDED HIS BUSINESS AND LIVELIHOOD AGAINST VIOLENT RIOTERS AND WAS ARRESTED ON MURDER CHARGES. THEY ALSO BETRAYED THE CANADIAN TRUCKER FREEDOM CONVOY. THEY ARE GARBAGE. DO NOT USE GOFUNDME FOR ANY REASON.
Look… federalism isn’t a suicide pact ok? Sometimes the will of the state trumps the will of the federal government (like for abortion). Other times, not (like for gun regulation). It depends on the issue, really.
The Supreme Court has issued its ruling. Now let it enforce it.
Are you channeling Andrew Jackson?
I did not look into it before I moved to SD, but its constitution has just this to say on the subject (no mention of militia to confuse the easily confused):
South Dakota Constitution
Article 6 – Bill of Rights.
§ 24. Right to bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.
Not bad, but “and the state” should be removed.
Agreed.
And replaced by “and their neighbors”
Ah yes, pulling the old “good moral character” requirement straight from the Jim Crow era. Translation: “good moral character” == “has white skin”
Do they even think about just how deep the racist roots they’re drawing from?
What next, a requirement of KKK membership or several character references from KKK members? Oh wait, I see NY is already there.
“Good moral character” means respect and obedience to the law. So if you’ve ever been charged with a crime greater than a traffic ticket you may be denied. Remember that accused means guilty. So charges are good enough. Shit, if you’ve been investigated without your knowledge, but never charged, that can be used against you as well. Maybe your name is in a bunch of police reports. But they need something they can put on paper as a documented reason. Statistically a black person has a greater chance of having a black mark against them (no pun intended) than a white person, and the people making the decisions have a lot of discretion. The cops may have an impossible task in denying a black person with a squeaky clean record, but anything other than squeaky clean can be used to deny anyone.
Republicans prefer just enough gun restrictions to keep them away from all the blacks they stowed in prison for loose cigarettes.
That is until the increasingly powerful inmates of that particular asylum keep pushing with their maximalism. There will be a surcharge for not owning a gun. Guns in cribs. Every float at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, guns.
Or maybe someone can spread a rumor about a loose immigrant at all of their hollers and they’ll just get drunk and shoot each other.
Syphilis?
Tony certainly has the symptoms.
As opposed to Democrats, who don’t bother with prison for loose cigarettes, they just kill you outright.
That’s even dumber than the average JesseAz post.
Republicans prefer just enough gun restrictions to keep them away from all the blacks they stowed in prison for loose cigarettes.
Yeah, those awful republicans who run NYC and all the other big cities.
. . .while you and your fellow Fascists want to keep guns away from everyone except those approved by the government.
The loosies you refer to were made illegal by bright blue New York City. Not a single Republican is in power there.
“Good moral character” according to Democrats, means ‘white’.
And they hold to this value to this day.
Yes, the state of New York, bringing back the old ways of Dixie.
Democrats don’t just want to take guns away from black people. They want to take them away from all people. Because we think this decades-long national bloodletting has gone on long enough, something enabled only by the persistent work of arms dealer lobbyists and their unpaid dancing monkeys.
You have a fetish for guns because you were instructed to have one. How does that make you feel? Don’t worry, we all come by our hobbies in ways less deliberately than we’d like to think.
Arms, oil, and tobacco. These are the industries that own the Republican party. Why do you think all the evil corporations chose them?
Have you ever done drugs with Hank?
Or Andrew Gillum?
So you concede that Democrats want to take away guns from all people.
And yet, if we believe what they have been saying about the police for two years, in practice they will only take away guns from Black people.
Speaking of good moral character, there is this requirement in the FAA regs for airline pilots:
§ 61.153 Eligibility requirements: General.
To be eligible for an airline transport pilot certificate, a person must:
…
(c) Be of good moral character;
….
And so it begins.
Be honest. If the turns were tabled, Republicans would have turned the Supreme Court into a 137-member lynch mob, would they not? Or Trump would put little ipads with his face on them in the seats formerly occupied by the Supreme Court-in-exile.
Just remember whose fault this is. Democrats didn’t steal any seats, they gave them away. Republicans are using the power they have stolen for evil, just as they had planned. It begins with states telling those tyrannical psychopathic ghouls to fuck off.
Yep, definitely Syphilis. Your regression will be sad to watch.
You can mute him unless that interferes with the amusement that the demented provide.
Everywhere I go on the internet, rightwingers are censoring opinions that don’t agree with what they were spoonfed on FOX News.
I can’t imagine going through life needing to shelter myself from other opinions. The arrogance. The pathetic childishness of it all.
Syphilis and Monkeypox. He must of contracted it from a rave. Too bad. Now he’s admitting that gun control was created to keep black people from owning firearms. Wait till CuntJeff sees this.
I think you should do us all a favor and actually think about your political positions critically rather than flippantly. You owe more than bumper stickers and cheap propaganda to the families of all the butchered children.
When you say that dead children are the price of freedom, you better fucking well be able to define that freedom you’re buying with their corpses.
I never said that Tony, you are Straw Manning again. The reason we have dead children in Uvalde is because the cowardly police didn’t do their jobs. Mind you, these are the people that you and your side say will protect us once we disarm ourselves.
The only people that are responsible for dead children are the psychopaths that committed the actual crimes, not law abiding citizens that follow the law. So, suck a fat dick and shut the fuck up you stupid emotional piece of garbage.
Japan just had its first gun homicide of the year. Sure, it was a former prime minister, but nonetheless, the US has had 4,000 gun murders in the same time span.
Are Americans 4,000 times more psychopathic than Japan? Are Americans simply the most morally depraved people in the civilized world?
Again, you owe the children who’ve died for your cause a better excuse than inane hand-waving psychobabble.
I’m sorry that your being a toady of arms dealers has made you rationalize the mass slaughter of children. That must indeed be rather cognitively dissonant. Of course, nobody forced you to be that way.
Again, you fucking retard, the people responsible for mass shootings are the shooters themselves, not legal and lawful gun owners. You don’t want to get into who commits a majority of gun murders and mass shootings, so don’t go there lest you start screaming racist.
I have no opinion on Abe and Japan. Not my circus not my monkeys.
America has a gang violence problem in big cities. That’s why there are so many people shot every year. It has nothing to do with law abiding gun owners and concealed carry permit holders. Psychos and criminals will find a way.
Drug war limits legal avenues to drugs. High profit black market produces competition that cannot be adjudicated except violently. Hence, hundreds of killings in poor drug areas.
It seems that you have stumbled upon a dirty little secret.
Street thugs and gangbangers use civil rights protections to enable their crimes and escape punishment.
They peaceably assemble and speak to plan and prepare robberies and drive-by shootings.
They peacefully bear arms to and from the scenes of robberies and drive-by shootings.
They use their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures to conceal evidence of their robberies and drive-by shootings.
They use their rights to a fair trial and due process to avoid judgment for their robberies and drive-by shootings.
They use their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment to avoid the punishment that they deserve for their robberies and drive-by shootings, even if they are judged guilty consistently with their other rights.
Of course, if you get your way, and the Bill of Rights is repealed, what makes you think the cops will only go after the street thug and the gangbanger?
What makes you think the cops will even go after the street thug and the gangbanger?
Tony, no one here can argue with you and like cowards throw out the meaningless personal insults. Might as well say “I’ve got nothing and Tony just kicked my ass.”
Either that, or his ravings are simply not worth responding to.
says the pro-marxist traitor!!!
New York and Hawaii are in open rebellion against the Supreme Court.
They will keep passing new laws that get slapped down when they reach the supremes.
It is certain that the Biden administration will not send in federal troops to enforce gun laws.
Now what?
This court is illegitimate with no connection to the majority of Americans, so it’s a matter of time until it’s decision will be summarily and one by one dumped and overturned. In the meantime, the states should do their job and protect it’s citizens and their rights as best they can. That’s what NY is doing.
The Supreme Court makes decisions based on the Constitution and if a law comports constitutionally. Not on the opinions and whims of the public, especially people like you on the lower end of the IQ distribution curve.
Just take comfort that intelligent people are making decisions so that you and your crayon breath doesn’t come along and ruin it for everyone else. After all, democrats like you have ruined this country with slavery, Jim Crow, and whatever smooth brained ideas you like to force on people like CRT, DEI, and anti-racism to name a few. Your losing Joe and don’t have the goddamn sense to see it. Sad!
Suddenly, all at once, all of these mouth-breathing idiots are talking about slavery and Jim Crow. You all have the same erroneous talking points all at the same time. Did Tucker do a segment on how Democrats were racists 150 years ago?
Have you people ever read a book? Any book? Have you ever actually thought about anything at all, or do you just repeat things you hear? Does your frontal cortex even activate on an average day, or is it all sensation and reaction?
Btw, that comment was for Joe Friday, Tony. Thanks for the tacit admission though.
As far as your complaints, anybody that picks up a history book or pays attention today will see what the party of Andrew Jackson was and is still all about, hence the references to CRT, DIE, and anti-racism.
You know what would really help your party not be associated with it’s history? CHANGING THE FUCKING NAME. We live in a society where any mention of the past in association with slavery is removed. Statues, names on buildings, books etc. Except, for some reason, the name of the party that fought to preserve slavery in the south, the democrat party.
It would be like members of the Nazi party getting angry about being reminded of the Holocaust. “Nuh uh, the parties switched, we represent the Jewish people now!!” “Sure but you kept the same name.”. This is what anybody who has studied history and examined the democrat party would conclude, Tony. Nothing has changed. It’s still the race obsessed, bigoted, prejudiced party it’s always been. You going to deny that it wasn’t the democrat party that created “Slave Codes” and “Black Codes”? Get over it Tony, democrat history is what it is.
The Republican party has been infamous for being useless and destructive for something like 80 years. They should change their name.
It’s really not important that the names of the parties have survived history, even if their actual demographic constituency and policy goals have radically shifted in that time. It’s just a curio of history. It’s irrelevant to literally everything.
You need to explain to me why the supposed party of anti-black racism gets 90% voting support from black voters. Go on, explain why all the black people vote for the racist party. Bonus points if you can do it without saying something racist.
Mainly entitlements and the destruction of the father in the black community. Btw, LBJ was a democrat and said the racist shit he said about blacks voting for Democrats for the next 200 years over Great Society programs, not the Republicans.
Try again asshole.
What the fuck are you talking about? People have been pointing out the racist history of Democrats here for as long as I’ve been commenting. I think it’s kind of pointless myself, but it’s not new.
150 continuous years of openly racist tradition.
What? They’ve changed you say?
Biden: ‘If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black’ 22-May-2020
President Biden pledged on the campaign trail — and, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s pending retirement, recently confirmed — that he would choose “the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” WaPo 25-Feb-2022
Not to worry, the legacy lives on.
The court did the right thing and you danged well know it! You pieces of worthless trash run your flaps every time something doesn’t go your way!!! Well GOOD FOR SCOTUS! I’M GLAD THEY OVERTURNED ROE AND AM THANKFUL THEY UPHELD THE 2ND AMENDMENT. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, PACK YOUR CRAP AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO STAY! IN FACT, YOU’D DO THE REST OF US PATRIOTIC AMERICANS A FAVOR BY DISAVOWING YOUR CITIZENSHIP AND MOVING TO CHINA!!!
Crud I had thought you went off to the great hardware store in the sky. Alas not.
@Joe F
“Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty…, absence of hatred and racism…”
So Democrats can’t get a firearms permit in California.
Letting law enforcement decide who is of “good moral character” is a joke. Really? How many bad cops do we hear of every day? Remember Uvalde, Texas, recently? Do you think any member of the Uvalde or Uvalde School Police Departments is qualified to judge ANYONE’S “moral character”? The only one I believe qualified to judge my moral character is God, no human being is qualified.
Gun controllers have never been against guns. They have been against self-defense, but too frightened to admit it. They want to be protected but don’t trust themselves to do it. Their immaturity is rooted in a lack of self-confidence and a lack of self-value.
Want proof? Ask them how they will be protected when guns are all gone and the cops quit because they feel naked. They will quickly admit they want cops to have guns. So, you can see they have no problem with guns.
Justice?
Back in the day the US AG sent in troops to protect citizens’ rights (Little Rock, U MS, Bama, etc).
Garland can be counted on to help enforce 2A, right?
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (phy-19) achieving this I’m ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk