Courts poised to deliver another big win for 2A, big loss to NY

[BabyBoomer50s]

Gotta love the Blue states and cities that repeatedly step on their dicks by passing extreme laws that ultimately strengthen Second Amendment rights.

The latest example is the recent New York public nuisance law seeking to make gun manufacturers liable for gun crime. Not only is the law likely to be a large miss, it will likely deliver another blow to gun control efforts by adding precedent protecting Second Amendment rights.

“no state has done more for the Second Amendment than New York.“

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/586385-new-york-aims-big-on-gun-control-and-misses-again

 

[ll74]

How is it a win for something that has never been in effect?

 

[GothTalk]

How is it a win for something that has never been in effect?

2A has never been in effect?

New to me.

 

[LittleDixie]

The 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone who reads it - Supreme Court Justices more than any of us.

Every time the state tries to curtail it or stomp it down, the Supreme Court tells them the same thing and our constitutional protection gets that much more airtight and permanent.

I'm glad that our freedoms are going to be more clearly enumerated soon.

 

[pecksniff]

The 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone who reads it -

No, only to someone who studies the historical context. It was intended to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- an idea America has long since scrapped with no regrets -- and never had anything to do with home defense or hunting, and certainly not with insurrection or resistance to the state.

 

[GothTalk]

No, only to someone who studies the historical context. It was intended to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- an idea America has long since scrapped with no regrets -- and never had anything to do with home defense or hunting, and certainly not with insurrection or resistance to the state.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

 

[RobDownSouth]

2A has never been in effect?

New to me.

^^^^ His "Stanford education" shows glaring lapses of basic comprehension.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

No, only to someone who studies the historical context. It was intended to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- an idea America has long since scrapped with no regrets -- and never had anything to do with home defense or hunting, and certainly not with insurrection or resistance to the state.

A ridiculous construction. The "people" described in the 2A are the same as those described in other Amendments, and those are clearly non-state actors.

 

[pecksniff]

A ridiculous construction. The "people" described in the 2A are the same as those described in other Amendments, and those are clearly non-state actors.

I do not recall "the people" being mentioned in any of the other amendments except for the 9th or the 10th, and nobody knows what the 9th or the 10th means anyway -- the concluding phrase "or to the people" is meaningless.

 

[Cubantripod]

No, only to someone who studies the historical context. It was intended to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- an idea America has long since scrapped with no regrets -- and never had anything to do with home defense or hunting, and certainly not with insurrection or resistance to the state.

Have you read the Heller decision? It's part history lesson.

 

[pecksniff]

Have you read the Heller decision? It's part history lesson.

Only in the same sense as the Dred Scott decision.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I do not recall "the people" being mentioned in any of the other amendments except for the 9th or the 10th, and nobody knows what the 9th or the 10th means anyway -- the concluding phrase "or to the people" is meaningless.

Try the Fourth, too, counselor.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Only in the same sense as the Dred Scott decision.

LOL....this has to be a joke.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

How is it a win for something that has never been in effect?

Same way Heller & McDonald established precedent for individuals right to keep firearms. Washington DC pushed the envelope too far and gun grabbers have been lamenting it ever since. This one will bolster the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which gives gun sellers and manufacturers immunity from liability arising out of the criminal misuse of firearms.

 

[ll74]

Same way Heller & McDonald established precedent for individuals right to keep firearms. Washington DC pushed the envelope too far and gun grabbers have been lamenting it ever since. This one will bolster the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which gives gun sellers and manufacturers immunity from liability arising out of the criminal misuse of firearms.

That was a supreme court win....this particular ruling is not. Setting precedent might be a win, but sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse

 

[pecksniff]

Same way Heller & McDonald established precedent for individuals right to keep firearms. Washington DC pushed the envelope too far and gun grabbers have been lamenting it ever since. This one will bolster the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which gives gun sellers and manufacturers immunity from liability arising out of the criminal misuse of firearms.

It is hardly reasonable to interpret the 2A to in any way protect sellers or manufacturers.

 

[Ramone45]

No, only to someone who studies the historical context. It was intended to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- an idea America has long since scrapped with no regrets -- and never had anything to do with home defense or hunting, and certainly not with insurrection or resistance to the state.

OMG, I've never met anyone who thought this way. I've always appreciated Judge Scalia's explanation of the right to bear arms.

 

[pecksniff]

LOL....this has to be a joke.

The Dred Scott decision was, among other things, a history lesson:

We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. . . .

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. ... They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

It is, of course, debatable whether this actually says more about American cultural assumptions as they were in the 1790s or as they were in the 1850s.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone who reads it - Supreme Court Justices more than any of us.

Every time the state tries to curtail it or stomp it down, the Supreme Court tells them the same thing and our constitutional protection gets that much more airtight and permanent.

I'm glad that our freedoms are going to be more clearly enumerated soon.

Clearly it isn't or we wouldnt' have the issues we do with Iran and Korea nor would we have gone into Iraq at the costs of thousands of lives.

 

[pecksniff]

Clearly it isn't or we wouldnt' have the issues we do with Iran and Korea nor would we have gone into Iraq at the costs of thousands of lives.

What do any of those have to do with the 2A?

 

[GothTalk]

What do any of those have to do with the 2A?

Nothing, he likes to bring up that we have problems with WMD's in the hands of his buddies who hate the USA ALMOST as much as he does, so we shouldn't have a 2A.

He's just a batshit anti-American, even worse than you.

 

[bellisarius]

The Dred Scott decision was, among other things, a history lesson:



It is, of course, debatable whether this actually says more about American cultural assumptions as they were in the 1790s or as they were in the 1850s.

Dred Scott concerned property, not rights. As disgusting as that observation is, that is the fact of it. Dred Scott is but one of many SCOTUS decisions that were less than wise.

The forthcoming decision (presumed as it were) is at least grounded in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights as it were. And whether you want to believe it or not this is a relatively minor decision. A great many of the law abiding people that will be effected by the decision are already armed. They just have to keep it a secret.

What I expect to see out of those states that are hell bent on firearm restrictions is a bundle of laws that will end up punishing those individuals that do exercise their rights to protect themselves just as we've seen in the Rittenhouse case. To instill a fear of protecting yourself, or your loved ones, that transcends the fear of the criminal that would do you harm. That too will pass.

 

[pecksniff]

A great many of the law abiding people that will be effected by the decision are already armed. They just have to keep it a secret.

What is at issue is a "New York public nuisance law seeking to make gun manufacturers liable for gun crime." Striking that down would not affect them at all.

What I expect to see out of those states that are hell bent on firearm restrictions is a bundle of laws that will end up punishing those individuals that do exercise their rights to protect themselves just as we've seen in the Rittenhouse case.

Not an example that makes your side look credible.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What do any of those have to do with the 2A?

Thank you for asking dear friend.

As our friends in the opposition are keen to point out the Constitution does not GRANT the government powers, it is built to LIMIT the power of said government. Basic rights like freedom or speech, or self defense or. . .okay most of the rest initial ten are products of their time. are deemed either a gift from God along with free will OR they are inherent in being human either way they are above our abiilty as individuals or even as government officials to question. Be it natur or God they come from a higher power.

If we hold that truth self evident than these basic rights are universal across the entirity of the planet. Our inability to enforce our will on people outside our borders does not change the fact that these people, according to our laws, have the same rights endowed by our creator.

So are we smarter than God? Seeing how I think God is somewhere between Harry Potter and and Gandalf the Grey in terms of being real I would say so. But I didn't write the Constitution, nor do I think it is flawless. If they came from nature, and we again hold the sacred documents to be true we have no right to prevent others from arming themselves how they see fit.

Now we are unable to enforce our laws which are by the way are written my men the fantastic and the fucked all alike. That doesn't mean we do not have control over how WE treat people both within our power, such as prisoners, nor does the fact that North Korea not allowing civilians to arm themselves doesn't give us the right threaten them. At least not any more than it does any of the other nations with Nuclear weapons.

Again this is the way the laws were written, if someone wants to argue by all means take it up with the authors of the Constitution. Or God. If you chose to challenge the Almighty please invite me so I can bear witness. Hell I might even slide you a steel chair.

 

[pecksniff]

Thank you for asking dear friend.

As our friends in the opposition are keen to point out the Constitution does not GRANT the government powers, it is built to LIMIT the power of said government. Basic rights like freedom or speech, or self defense or. . .okay most of the rest initial ten are products of their time. are deemed either a gift from God along with free will OR they are inherent in being human either way they are above our abiilty as individuals or even as government officials to question. Be it natur or God they come from a higher power.

If we hold that truth self evident than these basic rights are universal across the entirity of the planet. Our inability to enforce our will on people outside our borders does not change the fact that these people, according to our laws, have the same rights endowed by our creator.

So are we smarter than God? Seeing how I think God is somewhere between Harry Potter and and Gandalf the Grey in terms of being real I would say so. But I didn't write the Constitution, nor do I think it is flawless. If they came from nature, and we again hold the sacred documents to be true we have no right to prevent others from arming themselves how they see fit.

Now we are unable to enforce our laws which are by the way are written my men the fantastic and the fucked all alike. That doesn't mean we do not have control over how WE treat people both within our power, such as prisoners, nor does the fact that North Korea not allowing civilians to arm themselves doesn't give us the right threaten them. At least not any more than it does any of the other nations with Nuclear weapons.

Again this is the way the laws were written, if someone wants to argue by all means take it up with the authors of the Constitution. Or God. If you chose to challenge the Almighty please invite me so I can bear witness. Hell I might even slide you a steel chair.

You seem to be saying that whatever "natural right" the 2A embodies ecompasses a government's right to stockpile WMDs. That's quite a stretch.