As with most things, the SCOTUS’ recent decision that using race as a criteria for college enrollment is unconstitutional has its good and its related though largely irrelevant bad.
Almost everyone would agree that race should not be a criterion for anything. Well, they would if the race wasn’t Black. But, of course, the entirety of the Left and the “Black Community” does want race to be a criterion… if the race is Black and they get comparatively lowered admission standards. They unashamedly admit that the Blacks can’t meet normative admission standards.
But then, that is the entire premise of Equity! Hence, it’s good that this has been, at least insofar, as college admissions are concerned, finally eradicated by the SCOTUS.
The Left and their Black sharecroppers have been ranting how Legacies still get preferential admissions and, while its irrelevant and nothing but a subnormal straw man, they are right in their assertion that Legacies are bad. They suck. They are based upon nothing resembling merit or ability. But they’re also not something that law or the courts can correct for.
Hellfire! I’d like to an end to athletic scholarships too. But that would really set off the Blacks.
It’s a sad thing, but this is how the queer freaks and their nigh on mindless enablers really think and how they want to react and act in response the the SCOTUS’ opinion upon Creative LLC v. Elenis.
They truly believe that the SCOTUS has decreed that businesses can refuse to serve people et al simply because they some form of minority, in this case LGBT+ sorts. And, of course, they’re hysterical over it and indulging in masturbatory fantasies about refuse to service various, more normative Americans.
But… like with almost every erosion of special privilege that any minority group faces, both their complaints and fantasies are just wrong and based upon their own ignorance and demands for special treatment.
The SCOTUS’ opinion upon Creative LLC v. Elenis in no way, shape, or form – not even by implication or “penumbra” – say that any business may refuse customers who possess some specially protected trait, e.g., being non-White, non-Christian, or Queer. Indeed, the Court’s opinion is predicated upon the owner of 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith’s uncontested assertion that she is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” and she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation.”
No. The Court’s ruling is that the State cannot compel expression – read as Speech – that goes against one’s religious views. Hence, they cannot compel Creative LLC to make a wedding website for a queer couple, but they could penalize them for simple refusing to provide their services to Queers just for being queer. Similarly, a Muslim-owned company could not be compelled by the state to provide creative/expressive services for a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah. One could, thanks to this ruling even refuse to provide such services for #BlackLivesMatter and/or #MAGA events, if one decide that either or both groups espoused behavior that goes against one’s firmly held beliefs.
But, what’s both sad and casus belli is that these freaks don’t make a distinction between what they want to do and what they are. If people will not support any and every one their actions, they see it as a direct attack upon their very identity and existence. And, they want to create a world where everyone is compelled to do so.
Somewhat overshadowed by certain sorts’ screaming, hysterical outrage of the SCOTUS’ decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is the rage and hatred inspired, especially by NY politicians, about the highest mortal Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which declared NY’s second-step, means-end scrutiny, for issuing a concealed carry permit to be unconstitutional and, hence, illegal.
What this means and what this only means is that nobody who can and does legally own a firearm in NY and who wishes to carry it with them in a concealed – aka nonthreatening – manner has to prove to the police department’s satisfaction that: a) carrying a concealed weapon is in my interests; a) carrying a concealed weapon would be effective in furthering my interests; and c) that there is no lesser method than my carrying a concealed weapon that would sufficiently further my interests.
Personally, I believe that this ruling is century overdue. I also believe that certain criteria in the NY laws covering legal firearm ownership need strict review, but that can come and be discussed later.
Consider This If You’re Raging
Before Bruen, if anybody desired to carry a firearm on their person outside of their home – that includes in public spaces of their building, e.g., laundry rooms, if it’s multi-tenanted – they would have to prove to assigned members of the police department that they needed to do so, carrying a weapon would fulfill that need, and that there was no better way of fulfilling that need. And, each person would have to individually prove to the specific officer(s) appointed to that licensing review that all of the above were true. And, if they are denied, they have to practical recourse, as Bruen having to go all the way to the US Supreme Court proves since very few private individuals have the wealth needed to sustain such a legal battle.
Each request is fielded by appoint officers of the local law enforcement body and each is decided upon based up individual, subjective value judgements. That opens up the doors – more like knocks down the whole wall – for bias-based denials. That or those specific licensing officers are Racist for any value thereof? Individuals of the detested race can and likely will be denied. If they’re sexist? individuals of the denigrated gender will be denied? Homo- or Heterophobic? Again, denied. And, in all those cases, that’s it. It’s over. The petitioner had no authority that they could reasonably go to in order to overturn the decision.
So, what those who are raging about this decision are really saying, though the vast majority of them don’t in any way consciously realize, is that they want the police – an organization that they regularly vilify as being violently and lethally racist, sexist, and homophobic, to be the sole authority to issue concealed carry permits based upon criteria that they are the sole arbiters of the meeting thereof.
Better, Objective, Prerequisites
Firstly, allow me to completely, utterly, and irrevocably alienate a large swath of my fellow Americans. I don’t care what you believe, I believe that carrying a weapon on your person, concealed or openly, in public is a privilege and not a right as enumerated by our Second Amendment. As such, it is acceptable to me that there are preconditions for any of us to be allowed to do so.
What I firmly believe is that means-ends testing and other personal, subjective standards to being acknowledged to have that privilege mus be struck down and abolished to the midden pit of history.
But, please do add in objective requirements, especially requirements for basic firearm usage competency and the requirement for training on real world best practices for defensive use of one’s carry piece(s). Just ensure that, whether or not government agencies will offer the training and testing or not, that private entities’ competency/completion avowals are accepted so as avoid returning to the same biased standards through a back channel.
Again, again, and FUCKING again, please fucking do that! I was a certified Range Safety Officer (RSO) and at one time a large part of my job was providing the firearms safety and use training required in my state for getting a concealed permit. I’ve seen what is likely most of the whole range of people with firearms and I don’t want to ever see a number of them walking around “strapped” in public.
You’ve probably never had a fool respond to being corrected on the range by unthinkingly panning his locked and loaded shotgun across his wife and pointing at you as he responds, “What?” I have.
So, technically, I do want “ends testing” insofar as does the applicant have the basic competency so that carrying a firearm could serve his or her perceived needs or desires and wouldn’t exacerbate other people’s need to do so as well. I just want a fixed, objective criteria for proving that.
Some Disclosures And Rant-Like Stuff
I live in NYC, epicenter of this conflict. For over 18 years I’ve been subject to the City and State’s draconian firearms laws. And it hasn’t effected me one whit. I’m writing about this whole thing solely because of my love of the Constitution, not because I have any “skin in the game” at all.
I lived many years when I almost always had at least one firearm on my person or within my easy reach 24 hours per day 200+ days a year, with that number rising to over 300 if one discounts the beach days when my weapon stayed with the rest of my gear, especially my smokes, while I was in the water. But, I haven’t lived that way for almost as many years since then and I don’t miss it at all. I love that I changed my life so that I don’t have yet another piece of gear that have to be constantly concerned about “going adrift.
I have all warranted respect for police officers, but very little respect for the actual level of training in proper combat use of firearms that police officers receive or are de facto allowed to relieve. Hence, their being the authority which determines who can carry a firearm really strikes me as equal parts stupid and hypocritical. Statistically speaking, none of them quite obviously not even many of their SWAT teams – have undergone the training I did, which I actually consider pretty close to the minimum needed vs. something “bad ass,” in Close Fire situations with friendlies and/or collaterals present.
Sadly, due to what it would cost, how many police academy enrollees would fail, and the Liberals’ insane fears of “militarized police,” the police are unlikely to ever receive this training.
This last bit I can figure out no way of saying without sounding like a total arrogant ass who’s most likely just lying to make myself look “tough.” But, here goes anyway, since showing my own bias and “privilege” is important to me in this post:
I am a weapon in a sadly too true sense. I’ve approximately 50 years of training in hand-to-hand and melee weapons combat, a great deal of it being what aficionados would call “street tactical.” A firearm to me is just a force multiplier, and my life doesn’t require me to have one of those anymore. And, if that changes, it’s unlikely that I’m going to care what the laws on the books are, that those laws are still enforceable, or that I would choose to carry a concealable weapon.
So yeah, I’ve earned the privilege of being someone who is unlikely to ever feel that I need a concealed carry permit. That does need to be taken into account as an admission of my bias in this issue.
OK, now I’m thinking of some Mayday operative, Handmaiden roleplay. “Tell me your name as I put my child in you before sending you back to that Commander!” #MKINYKBMKIOK
Oh, and if any of you Liberal Womyn want to get ahead of the game, you can buy your very own bonnet here. And, don’t you worry your pretty-enough-that-some-man-had-sex-with-you heads about raising your unwanted but now unable to be murdered children. Believe me, no Americans want you raising any children. We have many, many good, upstanding, American couples will be quite happy to have the State give them your progeny to raise and raise rightly.
Bluntly put, the “My Body, My Choice” argument from the Left is one I’ve heard – or rather read – in the past. It’s an old argument. It is essentially the same argument used by the majority of anti-abolitionists in the decades leading up to the Civil War.
There’s not much difference in fact or law between claiming that you find the enslavement of Blacks to be abhorrent but feel that it’s not your or the government’s place to deny them that “right” and saying that you find killing and unborn child to be abhorrent but feel that it’s not your or the government’s place to deny a woman that “right.”
And the core of both the slavers and the abortionists are the same, that the victims aren’t persons. They’re not and lesser to humans and have no rights and only the privileges granted to them by their betters. In the case of abortion, the privilege to live at all.
So, no matter how you look at it, the Left’s primary argument in favor of abortion is the same argument with the same core foundation as the argument in favor of continuing to allow slavery in the 1st half of the 19th Century. And, given how the Left has violently responded to the probably overturning of Roe v. Wade, it may well lead to something akin to next Civil War.