Ruled that statements a person makes, even if they aren’t read their “Miranda Rights” could be used against them.
They also scaled back concealed carry gun laws in NY which could have implications nation wide.
In a nutshell they decided that law abiding citizens shouldn’t have to go through an arduous process to carry outside of the home.
“In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Court’s opinion, referencing two previous gun cases. “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.”
I don’t like the Miranda decision but I understand it. The constitution doesn’t say the 4th or 5th amendment apply only AFTER Miranda rights are read.
I love the second decision because most likely it impacts NJ’s ridiculous gun laws.
Right now, I have to file a permit for each handgun I want to buy but rifles and shotguns I don’t need to. Also, these applications are at the discretion of local police chiefs…. They make arbitrary decisions. No good.
1 Like
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not the ruling at all.
Their statements will still be thrown out if they aren’t read Miranda. The decision merely says the officers can’t be sued for failure to read them.
The decision essentially says that Miranda IS a protection, but it’s NOT a constitutional right, and therefore cops can’t be sued for failure to read them.
305 - you’re not wrong. That was the direct ruling. However, as you know, each ruling has a trickle down effect on other legal questions.
During arguments on the case in April, Justice Elena Kagan said she feared that if the court rules for Mr Vega, the outcome “will undermine Dickerson,” the 2000 decision that was written by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Whether cops can be sued or not, to me, is the smaller issue. The bigger issue to me the actual application of the Miranda Rights guidelines and how they apply (voluntary confessions or coercions, etc…)
I definitely worded it wrong out of the gate.
I agree with both decisions. I especially like the 2nd Amendment decision. Guns prevent many violent acts every day. As I’ve said often, I don’t want to be put in the position of begging for life before some homicidal maniac terrorist. A lot of victims have perished waiting for cops to show up.
Still waiting for 305 to start singing “I saw the light” with reference to Ukraine. Nevertheless, 305 deserves kudos for his research activity and persuasive argument even if he is dead wrong. The key is being always skeptical of government and even more skeptical of MSM. I admire people who don’t let grass grow below their feet versus those who remain uninformed and wholly apathetic with regard tyranny.
i’m skeptical of both. The thing is, unlike you, I’m also skeptical of the Russian government. But let’s not turn this thread into another Russian propaganda war.
