Supreme Court justices have announced that for the first time in more than a decade they will take up a major issue in the gun rights debate: How much protection does the Second Amendment provide for carrying a gun outside the home? NBC News’ Pete Williams reports.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:
Supreme Court To Take Up Gun Rights Outside The Home | Hailie Jackson | MSNBC
Here’s hoping for a constitutionalist ruling.
@Kevin Dwelle When seconds count, the police are minutes away. You are ultimately responsible for protecting your life and your family’s life.
@Ray Cis I Don’t Need A Gun To Be A Man. But I Do Know Alot Of Spineless Cowards Have No Courage Without Their Guns.
@Leon Russell No Your Confusing Some States Marriage Laws With Completely Different And Needed Gun Laws That American Citizens Are Dying And Dealing With Now! That’s Why The Supreme Court Are Discussing The Gun Problem.
@Kevin Dwelle our justice system ,from the very beginning, was based on common law which is common sense law or God’s law.
Google it
Even if Roberts goes turncoat again, I don’t think the law will stand.
Civil rights don’t end at your front door.
@Hyperpandas incorrect… there is no right to a life with 0 risk. the 2A obviously allows citizens to bear arms outside of the home… how is a militia supposed to form and train if their guns can only sit at home? use some basic logic guy
@Ronnie Blakemore You keep talking about the original intent of the framers. Given that most of the framers owned slaves, couldn’t you reasonably conclude the rights afforded in the Constitution weren’t originally intended for black people? See, this is the problem with your whole appeal to “original intent”, it’s a dumb standard. The Constitution, by design, is a living document.
@Hyperpandas I didn’t say anything about anyone’s intentions.. I’m talking about the Original Meaning of the text as agreed to by those who signed and ratified the US Constitution as a Social Contract..
Race isn’t a subject touched on in the US Constitution. Any and all Citizens of the States are lawful citizens as far as the federal constitution is concerned.. regardless of race.. some of the States had already started to abolish slavery before the US Constitution was even drafted..
The 3/5ths Clause was agreed as meaning all were equally persons, but not equally represented when allocating seats in Congress.. dependent on social condition.. you can’t change it to mean “3/5ths a person” and lawfully apply that meaning without AMENDING the text through the amendment process.. the opposite of a “living document”..
@Ronnie Blakemore Original intent and original meaning are the same thing. Stop dancing and answer the question, unless you’ve recognized that you’re in a box…. Edit: Oh, and the fact that there is an amendment process *makes* it a living document, tiger.
@Enough nobody has a “war” weapon or Automatic..You don’t even know anything about guns or gun laws….. And your statement just showed you ignorance about the subject..
Here’s you education…… Automatic weapons have been illegal since 1938…except by special permit ..
.People who don’t even know anything about Guns are the ones that always want to take them away from every legal gun owner… which has never will ever do nothing to stop evil people from carrying out their evil deeds.
One thing you could do to give innocent people a chance though , is to #1 …. end gun free Zones ..there’s a reason this is where all these shootings happen in these places….It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Another is to allow people who willing to practice being prepared , Be prepared.. while others leave their weapons at home because it’s an inconvenience. This has proven over and over to detour and at times stop would be mass shootings..or at least limit the carnage……
Outside inside I’m gonna protect my life. DON’T matter what they say.
@Sunny Island
That was painful to read
@Gary Hochstetler
Just waking up in the morning to what’s become of this Nation is rather sort of a kind of pain.
Do you not think so.
@Wict·Imov Go·Vo·Nca 2/3 those gun deaths are suicides and between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved by guns each year. So I’ll be keeping my guns
Sunny Island tell me more about your sheltered and privileged life , and why people don’t need guns to protect themselves from criminals. Either you live a wealthy life or you aren’t American either way your opinion on the matter is invalid.
@Blake Metzger I’m a veteran and I’ve been alive and seen plenty. Wake the f up
No government is going to tell me where I can or cannot protect myself and my family.
@JK I could say the same exact thing I just said. Even if they put a law into place and it passes through all the branches does not mean a law is right.
@AbSaw You literally are wasting your breathe. Go ask a constitutional scholar about your God problems.
I will be over here, enjoying my RIGHT to bear arms
The problem with you people, is you are trying to argue against an absolute. Which the 2A IS. Its like anti-gun people are trying to whine and cry about why the sky is Blue. It isn’t something you can argue or debate. Until the 2A is completely rewritten, which will never happen without a civil war, you will have to live in the country with guns.
You can always leave. The USA was not built as a freaking Utopia, and it never will be one. But it became the greatest nation for a reason. The 1st and 2A were instrumental in keeping the power in the hands of the people.
@derek patton Laws are found to be unconstitutional, unintelligible, contrarian, etc. by judges all the time. What’s your point? That it’s “wrong”? So what? You’re a citizen of the US. By living here, you agree to abide by such laws, otherwise those laws are enforced against you and you are punished, either via fine or imprisonment. You don’t like a state law? Vote your state rep out of office and have it repealed. You don’t like a federal law? Lobby your congressman and have it rewritten. There’s a process to everything. It’s what makes us a democracy.
@Wict·Imov Go·Vo·Nca In NY, the government tells you what you can have in your own house that is so illegal and the gov cannot and should not be telling people what they can have in their houses. NY is so insane.
@Wict·Imov Go·Vo·Nca Even if guns are not allowed in NY, a person can still have one in your own house. That is private property.
Taking up a subject and doing something which can effect change are *two completely different things*. And with this court, I don’t see them making any ruling which will do so.
Good. People deserve the ability to protect themselves from those who wish to do them harm.
@corujariousa oh you mean where you go in to buy a gun and are still background checked. You clearly have never been to a gun show. I go often.
@DC and PR Statehood Now The 2nd amendment does not apply to muskets. This is a lack of information on your part. I would recommend you research guns that were available at that time. Not just cannons which were owned by regular ppl, but machine guns such as the puckle gun and others.
@Bill Sbac No it said militia and then a militia was all men between a certain age. Stop with these nonsensical misunderstandings.
@Bill Sbac That’s ridiculous. I welcome ppl of all races to arm themselves.
@corujariousa You were the one that brought up the scenario of if the military followed some dictator that we wouldn’t be able to fight them off. Someone responded that ppl are doing it in 3rd world countries, right now and you say that it was a bad example…he was responding to YOUR example!
This is going to be very interesting.
It will tell how many 💩👺still hiding in a robe!
I want some 🌮 🌮🌮
@Ill bet We all thought you were a sausage lover
They are going to protect you from guns, you know like they did with drugs.
@Mike Hall,
“Guys who support…”
Guys named Mike Hall screw pigs when their sisters on the monthly.
Drugs, the same drugs they legalized in Oregon?
@juul cat Yeah turns out making them illegal didn’t help anyone and actually harmed the public…kind of like gun control
@Dean Foyle Oh did somebody run out of corn dogs…poor baby. GFYS.
@Mike Hall,
You are literally the only one having those corn dog fantasies.
Funny how it’s your sick mind that came up with the ridiculous notion.
It begs the question, “how many iterations of this fantasy did you envision before you settled on corn dogs?”
In an Age when Crime is encouraged — Good luck taking my guns
@Giuliana CR Exactly. Criminals will be criminals. They are already emboldened right now. I refuse to be a victim or let a stranger in my presence. Gun or not. But would rather have one. Can’t take a knife to a gun fight.
Anyone on this thread that is against 2A. I just want you to know, if I saw ANYONE being victimized….I would intervene. I would die trying to protect anyone, especially Elders or kids. With a gun, I can do more. So there’s that. Much love 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸❤❤❤
@Roswell,
“The new administration…”
You have a very active imagination.
You are not alone.
@Dean Foyle no honest person would call them anything but that. They don’t deserve it.
Criminals don’t care about the court nor law
This has worked great in Chicago. I have never heard about any violence in Chicago on the news
@The Johnnie Walker Exactly! The US is filled with maniacs. As the news has clearly shown us for decades! Many of them have an arsenal each. Definately a crazy situation!
Trumpies don’t care about the law either !!
@William Ratekin or trump. But guns!!
So we should just not have laws
The Constitution doesn’t stop because I leave my house.
@Mittens you have a right to defend yourself, your current location doesn’t matter
@Ego Brain I think you should google the definition of Authoritarian, since you want to impose your rights and political views over the others, and thats not how the US works, how democracy works.
Democracy is a concensus of the needs and the will of the majority, you as an individual are not as important as the collective majority which needs to protest racial injustice and police brutality, if you want to direct your disagreement with anyone you should do it with your goverment, to press them to address the underlying conditions that cause people to have to protest rather than blaming those who are protesting for their civil rights.
@Mr. S “well-regulated”
@Vanessa Maldonado Democracy is very dangerous to our constitutional republic.
Perhaps stop talking about democracy because our constitutional republic is in danger the more you try to pretend our country is a direct democracy.
P.S. I love how you didn’t respond to my comment. I suppose you decided you couldn’t defend your position on authoritarianism any longer? Or perhaps you saw the truth in my statements and realized that I am correct in my assertions? L
I guess in the 1700s they didn’t figure on people going hunting outside the house. For food you were just supposed to shoot mice and rats and the occasional deer that wandered into your cabin.
I’m sure the criminals will all obey the new rules.
@Elijah Mitchell every blue area is more violent than red areas for a reason
@Elijah Mitchell how any bad guy with guns end up either getting killed or won’t commit crimes because everyone has a gun at 16 u should be able to carry a gun
These laws are not for criminals….
@Federico Biassini the vast majority of people have no technical knowledge or hand on ability to make a firearm, so it would have an enormous impact. Most people are incredibly stupid. Look at all the people that believed a massive conspiracy theory with zero evidence presented to them or observed with their own eyes last November.
@The Johnnie Walker completely wrong that is a huge myth proved wrong by numbers
It’s extremely liberating when you realize that you don’t care. The government can’t disarm you. Only you can.
@Barry Walls The government did not right the constitution, the citizens did. It’s purpose was to define the limits of governmental authority, not the limits of citizens rights.
@peter blood Thomas Jefferson outfitted the Lewis and Clark expedition with the girandoni air rifle. Your comment is completely null. You would have to assume they never anticipated the advancement of weapons technology; while they knew of and utilized a semi automatic rifle during their time. Next!
@John Call rather die free than live out life as a serf. You better figure that out for yourself. Sounds like you’re okay with the latter.
@Thomas Monahan
One Girandoni air rifle. Everyone was equipped with the regular muskets of the era. The air rifle was kept wrapped and out of sight to protect it from damage until they used it to impress some Indians along the way. It was not a military rifle as far as the United States was concerned although it had been in use sparingly in some European armies, most notably the Austrian army.
However, exactly what is your point ?
@peter blood it had a twenty round capacity and was essentially semi automatic. The left, you, think the ar 15 is not protected by the second amendment and yet it is functionally similar to a rifle owned by citizens in the 1700’s… that’s my point.
Ah snap! I didn’t know the constitution only applied to my house!!
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to citizen anyway, so I wouldn’t worry about whatever the SC says on the subject. But of course if they come to the gun lobbyists decision then we will put 10 more justices on the court and overturn whatever your NRA justices decide anyway. Thanks for playing.
@John Spartan – @”exactly! If you have to pay an annual “duty” on something you purchased, and it can be levied/taken away when you don’t pay along with imprisonment, you don’t own $hit!” – Well, not only this, but just look up “escheat” and what happens to your property if you don’t have a will or heirs. It all goes back to the state!
@Bill Sbac – @”The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to citizen anyway” – The Supreme Court has already ruled that it does.
@”so I wouldn’t worry about whatever the SC says on the subject.” – Wouldn’t worry? SCOTUS dictates what laws all other courts follow and will dictate what people can legally do. I don’t know what you even mean by “wouldn’t worry”.
@”But of course if they come to the gun lobbyists decision then we will put 10 more justices on the court and overturn whatever your NRA justices decide anyway.” – This won’t happen. I suggest you wake up from your pipe dream. Even adding 1 Justice to SCOTUS is unlikely as you need a Super-Majority, and it appears Manchin and Sinema are opposed to removing the filibuster.
@rek131
We can change the rule about the supermajority as well my friend, and we will. We ARE going to put more justices on that crony court of yours, or did you think we were going to be held hostage buy some justices appointed by a reality show host for the rest of our lives? I’m a firearm owner myself, and I’m telling you that the 2A has nothing to do with arming you, me, and the guy down the street, it has to do with setting up a new military to protect the new national called “America” in 1791. We have had enough, we have had enough of guns being handed out to people with unstable minds and low IQ’s, it is time for change and you are about to get it. Stand back, and stand by.
@Bill Sbac – @”We can change the rule about the supermajority as well my friend, and we will.” – You can only change the rule about supermajority with a majority. And as I already said in my last post, Manchin and Sinema are both against it…and without them, there’s no majority to change the rule about supermajority. So, this is a pipedream.
@”We ARE going to put more justices on that crony court of yours, or did you think we were going to be held hostage buy some justices appointed by a reality show host for the rest of our lives?” – No we aren’t and yes we will be.
@”I’m a firearm owner myself, and I’m telling you that the 2A has nothing to do with arming you, me, and the guy down the street, it has to do with setting up a new military to protect the new national called “America” in 1791.” – Well, I believe we will follow what SCOTUS says rather than your opinion about what the guy down the street has or needs.
@”We have had enough, we have had enough of guns being handed out to people with unstable minds and low IQ’s” – There will never be a law requiring mental stability or a high IQ to get a gun. Just won’t happen, ever.
@”Stand back, and stand by.” – You appear to be advocating violence to stop violence. A bit hypocritical.
“It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people
to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control …
The Militia is composed of free Citizens.
There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power
to the destruction of their own Rights,
or suffering others to invade them.”
Quote by:
Samuel Adams
(1722-1803), was known as the “Father of the American Revolution.”
Source:
3 Samuel Adams, Writings 251 (Henry A. Cushing Ed., 1906).
Adams has obviously never seen an AR-15 in action. What will free citizens do with them, shoot the sheriff or themselves?
@vlad78th Does that mean the first amendment doesn’t apply to cell phones, telephones and computers? The founding fathers never saw one of them in action either
Why was this ever even an issue? Literally have never heard anyone else try to say any of the other rights only apply inside your own home 🤦♂️
It’s all part of the Democrats’ agenda of disarming us before they can attain full control over us.
@rotorheadv8 LOLOLOLOLOL come on bro…that would be a bi partisan thing anyway if it did happen. Stop believing you have a choice. Why they would actually do is try and divide the citizens…hmmmm
@Fat Ike not too sure about the bi-partisan part (as far as passing legislation, yes). But look at who is introducing bills that would turn law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, and who is trying to stop it from happening.
All rights have limitations. The SCOTUS has already confirmed that the government can regulate guns. However, there are also limits to regulation, thus this cases being brought. Free speech is the same, we have a right to say almost anything, without government censorship or legal consequences. However, threats of violence, incitement to violence & incitement to panic, are not protected speech. We also are open to non-governmental consequences, such as firing for speech that violates employer policy, etc. In the case of guns, the government must protect the right to own & defend with a gun, but without violating the rights of others. Inside the home is an easy place to draw that line, outside the home, the rights of others are more likely to be impacted, which makes drawing that line more complex.
All the lives lost. Can’t believe you all really asking and responding this way
Well this is a good thing for states like California and New York. I’ve seen videos of people on youtube that go to their local police station to request a permit and they get full on interrogated and harassed by the police just for asking. It is insane. Hopefully this helps people living in those states.
The amount of hoops you have to jump through to even attempt to get a permit simply to own a pistol (not ccw) in upstate ny is insane and the wait time is ridiculous I’m not waiting 3 whole years or more for some guy to tell me yay or nay it’s unconstitutional and hopefully will be seen as such
Yeah, it’s unfortunate that those states to the shall issue mandate at its most technical level.
Yeah shouldn’t even need a permit.
And my state of New Jermany
Don’t forget, the people trying to decide how much we can defend ourselves are the ones that have the most protection.
@Fat Ike You said it Ike! Sniper and assault rifles and high powered repeating pistols, submachine guns etc (I dont know or want to know all the right names) don’t belong in the hands of the public, period. Never mind in the hands of those maniacs. And they are exactly who has them all and wants more. WTF should anyone be allowed more than 1 of the simplest, safest guns in existence. It’s insanity!
@Something Clever no they did not. I watch MSNBC from Nicole Wallace to Brain Williams. They CRITICIZE the excessive force of the police but not they’re EVIL.
@Fat Ike
Read the 2nd amendment. Besides, you can’t spot out a crazy person, people get stab to death as well. I don’t see them banning kitchen knives.
@Sunny Island let me guess you trust the government and the administration and refuse to believe everything that’s already happening in front of you? Yeah I’m going to bet you watch CNN on the daily
@Cat Magic so I can’t have a sniper rifle to acquire dinner for my family? I suppose you prefer I acquire all my food by going to a store whose employees are subsidized by the government through welfare?
What is an assault rifle exactly? What constitutes a “high powered repeating pistol?”
Just because you don’t know how to handle a gun, and all guns scare you, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have the right to have a weapon to hunt with.
Not sure how entitled you have to be to believe you can limit how I peacefully live my life, but it seems like one of the most entitled viewpoints out there.
One thing is for certain: Misery loves company.
The Constitution makes no distinction between in the home or outside the home. The right to keep and bear means you can carry. You always have a right to self-defense.
@karen Burrows You are wrong. The subject of the second amendment is not “militia,” it is “right.”
If you really want to get knit-picky about 18th century language… I hate to break it to you (not really), but the entirety of the populace of the newly formed United States of America was considered to be the militia. And the term “regulated” simply meant the word “trained” by our grammatical standards.
And unfortunately for you, introductory clauses did exist back then, just as much as they do today.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” There’s your introductory clause giving a reason as to why the statement “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
I’m so sorry you are incapable of understanding the simplest language in the human world.
So congratulations! You, too, are choking on a big, fat “L.”
If you have any further questions, call any of the English teachers of your local school district. I’m sure they would be more than happy to teach you.
@karen Burrows A government of THE PEOPLE, for THE PEOPLE, by THE PEOPLE…
So when that same document later references THE PEOPLE… Who do you think are they referring to?
Not to mention in Heller vs DC. The supreme court did rule that the second amendment DOES, in fact, apply to… wait for it… THE PEOPLE. Meaning everyone. Yes, that includes private ownership. Or should I even bring up that little provision at the very beginning of the Constitution ensuring THE PEOPLE’S right to PROPERTY? Last time I checked… firearms are property.
Enjoy choking on another L!
@Qwilliams Thanks for your response. I maintain the subject of the second amendment is the militia. I am aware that militia is defined as “every able-bodied male citizen of the United States and those who intend to become citizens”. I never argued that. I also didn’t argue the term “regulated”. I’m aware of what it meant and still means. My command of the English language is quite sophisticated, actually. I never asked you a question, I merely gave you some facts. You need to calm down.
@Qwilliams I’m sorry, where did I say it did not refer to the people? I thought we were talking about the 1791 document and its meaning; not a 2008 Supreme Court ruling on interpretation of the amendment. I also don’t deny that private firearms, duly bought and paid for, are property; but that was not the original argument, was it? Also, it would help if you weren’t so condescending. It’s a discussion, not a war.
@Steve’s Slide And Jazz I’m betting you had a Leftist teacher in school or college professor trying to interpret the 2A this way for you… All you have to know is what a Militia was back in 1887 and then the constitution becomes quite clear as to what A Militia is : Every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 …… BTW ‘State’ is not referring to the individual states ..it is pertaining to the Government as a whole…(just in case your Leftist teacher misinterpreted that also) The States were actually different countries with each their own currency laws ect before the constitution was drawn up….. Except when referring ‘The States individually’ …..amazing hiw people were once taught this in grammar school and now it’s not even covered…. brand new immigrants who got their citizenship know more about the Constitution in the history of this country then the people born here do. That is very sad