General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSam Alito shows what an asshole he really is
Samuel Alito Lashes Out at Stephen Breyers Dissent Referencing Mass Shootings in Supreme Court Ruling on Concealed Carry LawsJustice Samuel Alito offered some pointed criticisms for the arguments of Justice Stephen Breyer that invoked Americas recent spate of mass shootings in his dissent for the Supreme Courts ruling on a New York law over concealed weapons.
-snip-
From the dissent:
Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States efforts to do so New Yorks Legislature considered the empirical evidence about gun violence and adopted a reasonable licensing law to regulate the concealed carriage of handguns in order to keep the people of New York safe. The Court today strikes down that law based only on the pleadings. It gives the State no opportunity to present evidence justifying its reasons for adopting the law or showing how the law actually operates in practice, and it does not so much as acknowledge these important considerations. Because I cannot agree with the Courts decision to strike New Yorks law down without allowing for discovery or the development of any evidentiary record, without considering the States compelling interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens, and without considering the potentially deadly consequences of its decision, I respectfully dissent.
In response to the dissent, Alito wrote a concurring opinion where he dismissed the relevance of Breyers mass shooting examples, plus the prevalence of guns in American society. He also took a jab at the now-defunct New York law by remarking that it didnt prevent the Buffalo shooters rampage.
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissents lengthy introductory section. Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New Yorks prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/samuel-alito-lashes-out-at-stephen-breyers-dissent-referencing-mass-shootings-in-supreme-court-ruling-on-concealed-carry-laws/ar-AAYNdJ7
Why have any law at all then dumbass?
elleng
(130,126 posts)making a bad day worse, something alito does often.
C_U_L8R
(44,889 posts)It's toxic and demonstrably deadly.
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Thats the logic? My god
unblock
(51,974 posts)Is this a proper convention in legal opinions?
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)"Yeah, people will still break the law, so why have any on the books?" The libertoonian ideal: "Everybody knows" that thus-and-such is bad, we don't need a law against it. For example, everybody knows that you should drive on the right side of the street. Then some yahoo causes a multi-car pileup because he was using the left lane to pass a line of cars he didn't want to wait in line to clear. No law against it in libertoonian land.
unblock
(51,974 posts)Right wing logic.
We obviously put our racist past behind us so there's no need for federal monitoring of southern states anymore.
But gun crimes still exist so whatever regulations we have are useless so we can't even try.
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Kid Berwyn
(14,642 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=266685
Baitball Blogger
(46,572 posts)Massacres are the very reason your cases will be overturned due to public pressure.