Survival and Emergency Preparedness

It will be interesting to see both sides make their arguments and what questions the judges ask. Then it will be the old hurry up and wait.

At 10 a.m. EDT, the court will hear oral argument in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

https://www.scotusblog.com/

It was very interesting to listen to. The AG from New York is a complete idiot in my opinion. Her basic argument for the law was because we have more people in an area and that there are police there, we don't need to let people have guns where there are more people.

A couple of the judges asked her why it was okay to limit the right of the people in the city, but to not limit or give greater right to those in a rural area?

The answer is because there is more people and bad things happen in the rural areas and there aren't as many police so they need to take care of themselves. The cities have police so the people don't need guns (my paraphrase of her rambling).

Perhaps she needs to consult a dictionary and see what the definition of 'infringed' means...

It is hard to reconcile her words with what SCOTUS has previously ruled. She stated people in the city don't need guns because they have the police. Yet SCOTUS has already ruled the police do not have the duty to protect (except in a few cases such as when you are in custody) but to investigate crimes.

So, if you aren't allowed to protect yourself and the police have no duty to do such, who is responsible for your safety?

I saw the by-state list of new firearms sold from the beginning of the year up until late October. Illinois has had over 7 million guns purchased just this year. Seems residents of that State know what is what. By way of comparison, Florida and Texas had around 1.5 million each this year.

Of course that doesn't count private sales.