Supreme Court Hears First 2nd Amendment Case In A Decade | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

The Supreme Court is using a surprising case to put gun rights back in the spotlight for the first time in nearly a decade. Director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Medicine Health and Society, Jonathan Metzl, joins Stephanie Ruhle to discuss whether a decision means even more guns on America’s streets. Aired on 12/02/19.
» 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, Hardball, 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 Hears First 2nd Amendment Case In A Decade | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

53 comments

  1. I have a question for the gun lovers out there.Would you trust me to come into your house,let’s say as a plumber,with a loaded gun in my pocket ?

    1. @Alex .Wallace yes i think anyone would. You can’t see it so therefore you don’t know about it. “What momma don’t know won’t hurt her” no?

    2. @Borvo whoa…I’m in Taxachusetts so open carry is a no no and to conceal carry you need a license and to not live in Boston :/

    3. You forget that YOU have YOUR RIGHT to have whoever you want as a plumber. So, if your not happy with how they exercise thier rights, thats your problem. Thats what right are. You cant say i dont like guns so plumbers shouldnt have guns on the job

  2. The next generation of weapons the government will provide to law enforcement and military will make guns in the hands of the public passé !
    Today, if you are a criminal or bystander with a gun and a LEO sees it in your hand, YOU ARE DEAD! They shoot until you drop the gun or you stop moving. Proving guns are DANGEROUS!

    1. That’s what Americans want! Disarm Citizens so only the Government, Police State and Criminals gave have guns. It’s not like the Black Market will ever exist after The Great Gun Purge?

    1. What does that have to do with anything ….. Just look up the statistics on people killed by guns and saved by them ….end of conversation.

    2. @Ross Gun free zones …Dems killing all the mental health restrictions on people ….yes there was a time not so long ago that if you were unstable they could put you away until you proved you were ok …..Now thanks to Dems and the ACLU you can’t commit somebody unless they say ok ….hence all the mentally ill homeless …Great job Democrats.

  3. OMG, don’t let the Supreme Court get ahold of a 2A issue, it’s just political now.

    Translated: This will take gun control in the wrong direction, per the gun control crowd.

    Well, you Gun control people want to make cases. More need to go to the Supreme Court. If I was a wealthy New Yorker, it should be open season. Virtually every law New York has needs to be reviewed for it’s Constitutional merit.

    1. @Verum illic I don’t think these were militias are very “well regulated” if they’re off shooting up schools and churches.

    2. @Roger Wilco That’s exactly my point. There aren’t any “well regulated militias” in the 21st century that are not state-sanctioned (like the National Guard, or local law enforcement, the modern-day equivalents). The gun rights/gun lobby are trying to erect smoke and mirrors about their ” individual rights” under an anachronistic interpretation of a 200-year old amendment. Meanwhile, while the debates continue, real Americans continue to die needlessly, and 90% of the American public support common-sense gun regulation.

  4. The issue is the Constitution’s Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia,being necessary to the security of a free state,…shall not be infringed.
    The US Supreme Court, being a coequal branch in government, can weigh in where the Executive and Legislative branches have been barren on regulations.

    1. wanna see something funny? Google search “accidental discharge” then pick your favorite establishment like Walmart or Waffle House and put it after accidental discharge.

    2. @Roger Wilco wanna see something sad. In Chicago, another mass shooting 1 dead 4 injured but not one word from the mass media. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kptv.com/general/dead-injured-in-suburban-chicago-shooting/article_5876c49a-e434-5908-af62-a4d72a26faf5.amp.html
      In New Orleans 10 people shot. No mass media attention. Why?
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-new-orleans-shooting-20191201-vinawnwsfjht7hxrpqm5thksei-story.html%3foutputType=amp
      Is it because these are real shootings and the outcome can not be controlled by the media?
      Is it because these are “ghetto youth” and the media doesn’t care about them?
      Why?

  5. Would be blatant infringement of the 2nd amendment, what part of “well regulated” is so difficult to understand, to undermine a state, city, or local municipality to regulate as they see fit, would be exactly that… Tony Baloney already has infringed on the 2nd of course, so I say the 2nd should be considered invalidated.

  6. Clearly the way forward for the US is pass a law that makes it a requirement for all residents over the age of 12 to carry a fully loaded gun st all times. Just think how safe everyone would feel.

    1. I know you are not serious, but I actually think this could work, stop trying what is not working, and try something else, think about the last assault rifle ban, it was because the Panthers exercised their right to bear arms to protect their homes.
      I don’t think most Americans want to live in walled in country, with everyone toting rifles in public.

    2. @Sparky’s Space Alternatively, you could scrap the 2nd amendment and really take their guns away. It would be jolly interesting to see how many would put up a fight.

    3. urbanimage I would be very scared to give a gun to a child, so you are saying that we should turn back the hands of time in the Wild West.

    4. urbanimage, Where versions of that concept have been tried (Montenegro under King Nicolas being the best historical example) it worked out pretty well.

  7. so, what, they’re done with the DACA case, or it is just on hold so than get in a ruling first that would allow them to be shot instead?

    1. Marius Thefaker, Under the Geneva Conventions shooting invaders is already recognized as a legitimate option internationally.

    1. I am for the 2nd Amendment which allows you to carry a gun whenever you are performing the tasks of your well regulated militia. All other interpretations are too broad.

    2. At the time it was written, We the people are the militia, which was also self regulated as the people. Sorry try again

    3. ruth depew, You might want to learn what the term well regulated means. Because an average trap league, 3 man team, or street gang meets the historical legal standard.

  8. If you genuinely believe in the thin blue line & support law enforcement, you should also believe in laws that take guns out of reckless/unstable hands. The extent to which the population is armed is what makes policing so dangerous. SCOTUS and the NRA pushing the system way off balance isn’t helping, either. Now it’s basically come down to a need for individuals to arm themselves and dispense street justice when cornered, because government at most levels (especially local) has lost control of the weapons situation.

    There’s really only one direction all of this can go if you follow the inertia of the system to its logical end. It’s a future where cops are in even more danger as proliferation occurs among the brainless masses, and eventually the repeat shootings and disorder will force some kind of massive crackdown. This could *easily* begin as an issue of police attempting to retake gang-controlled neighbourhoods.

    Abandoning the concept of keeping a sensible buffer in place in the form of ‘reasonable gun control’ could *easily* force public opinion past the breaking point — and well into a constitutional amendment — somewhere down the line. I think, though, that as a general rule this largely comes down to public awareness and perception of the violence. There’s a chance things might already be halfway there.

    Congress, of course, can’t be bothered to consider any of this because many of them have been off collecting paychecks from the NRA and the arms industry — a phenomenon that’s been repeatedly documented across numerous elections now. Go ahead, check out OpenSecrets.

  9. We already know what’s gonna happen next…When the court decides to not hear the case, New York fascists will roll out a similar law infringing on gun rights. Scotus should hear the case anyway to keep unconstitutional lawmakers at bay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.