# New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: The Right’s Miscalculation



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’









						New York Democratic governor signs law limiting concealed carry of firearms in wake of Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics
					

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul on Friday signed into law a bill restricting the concealed carry of firearms in locations such as government buildings and schools after the US Supreme Court last week struck down the state's century-old law that placed restrictions on carrying a concealed...




					www.cnn.com
				




In essence, the State will simply designate all manner venues sensitive places where firearms are prohibited. Residents may carry concealed firearms but with no place to go.

Needless to say, conservatives will attempt to advance the lie that ‘anti-gun’ Democrats are trying to ‘disarm’ residents of the State – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that this miscalculation and political blunder on the part of the right is the consequence of forcing change through judicial fiat rather than democratic consensus – conservatives doing what they’ve complained about for decades: “activist judges and tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench contrary to the will of the people.”

Another lawsuit?

That will be a difficult case to make given the _Bruen_ Court’s reaffirming the authority of government to regulate firearms in sensitive places where guns may be prohibited.


----------



## TeeDub (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That law will be the next one tossed to the curb.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit



Hey Gumdrop, I wonder if NY State has any idea that CCW permit holders are like the LOWEST demographic for gun crimes?!


----------



## pknopp (Jul 2, 2022)

As noted, then it gets to the courts.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In essence, the State will simply designate all manner venues sensitive places where firearms are prohibited. Residents may carry concealed firearms but with no place to go.


Thus, why we KNOW you are a FUCKING LIAR when you say you don't want a complete ban and confiscation.

FUCKING LIAR!!!


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 2, 2022)

"Shall not be infringed" is an enigma wrapped in a riddle to proglodytes. 
They must like getting bitch slapped in NY


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2022)

The law will be contested and the TRUMPCourt will rule in favor of more guns


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> "Shall not be infringed" is an enigma wrapped in a riddle to proglodytes.
> They must like getting bitch slapped in NY


Has never been absolute

Ever try to buy a Stinger Missile?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 2, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> "Shall not be infringed" is an enigma wrapped in a riddle to proglodytes.
> They must like getting bitch slapped in NY


First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> As noted, then it gets to the courts.


But to what end?

‘In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements, Kavanaugh contended. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.”

Indeed, he continued, the Second Amendment “allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations.” Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’









						In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
					

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’




					www.scotusblog.com
				




It's unlikely the Court will want to venture into the tall weeds of what constitutes a ‘sensitive place’ and what does not.

Indeed, conservatives should learn from this mistake – to do as they’ve preached for decades: seek relief from government excess and overreach not via lawsuits but through the political process and democratic consensus.


----------



## excalibur (Jul 2, 2022)

There was no miscalculation.

I expect a TRO soon, to be followed by a permanent injunction against this gun-grabbing fiasco bet the Demon Hochul.


----------



## excalibur (Jul 2, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.




The right of the People to keep and bear arms. Confirmed by Chief Justice Taney in 'Dred Scott'. Reaffirmed in _Bruen_.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 2, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


No, it doesn't.  You just seem to want to apply some sort of meaning to it that you cannot explain.

YOU LOSE!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The law will be contested and the TRUMPCourt will rule in favor of more guns


Or not.

If conservatives were smart (!) they’d stay out of the courts and try to enact change through consensus and compromise.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Or not.
> 
> If conservatives were smart (!) they’d stay out of the courts and try to enact change through consensus and compromise.


Good luck with that one

They have the TRUMPCourt in their pocket and will use them to rubber stamp any grievance


----------



## pknopp (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But to what end?
> 
> ‘In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements, Kavanaugh contended. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.”
> 
> ...



 This is interesting and especially interesting coming from a Supreme Court justice. This is the thing that makes me stay and discuss useless topics. This is something I have missed.

 I can't fathom that Roberts argued the 2nd allows restrictions like with a felon. It does NOT. Other parts of the Constitution explains how one can have their Constitutional rights removed through due process but that part is not in the 2nd.  

 Do I believe the court, even this court will turn away all restrictions? No, I believe they may uphold restrictions in things like court houses or schools but I don't think they will uphold restrictions in large public areas.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But to what end?
> 
> ‘In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to portray the scope of Thursday’s decision as limited. The ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements, Kavanaugh contended. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting “open-ended discretion to licensing officials” and requiring “a showing of some special need apart from self-defense.”
> 
> ...


It is highly likely that the intent of the Court's prior ruling is being circumvented by defining EVERYTHING as a sensitive place. 

But keep on wishing, gun grabber.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> "Shall not be infringed" is an enigma wrapped in a riddle to proglodytes.
> They must like getting bitch slapped in NY


Wrong.

See Kavanaugh’s concurrence in post #10 – the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute.’


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.



When are you going to stop ignoring the founding father statements about the right to bear arms?

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…_s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 2, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> When are you going to stop ignoring the founding father statements about the second amendment?
> 
> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> ...


Game.
Set.
Match.

Some people should be executed for defying the intent of the 2A.


----------



## BlackSand (Jul 2, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


.

The Second Amendment grants the People, not the Militia. the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed ...
And only a devout Authoritarian Fascist Priestess or Priest could screw up that interpretation.

.​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Good luck with that one
> 
> They have the TRUMPCourt in their pocket and will use them to rubber stamp any grievance


The problem for the right is that a ‘conservative’ Court is a double-edged sword – particularly when it comes to gun cases.

Of course, if the Court were truly ‘conservative’ it would have respected “states’ rights” and ruled in favor of New York.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem for the right is that a ‘conservative’ Court is a double-edged sword – particularly when it comes to gun cases.
> 
> Of course, if the Court were truly ‘conservative’ it would have respected “states’ rights” and ruled in favor of New York.



 States rights don't apply to things listed in the Constitution. Just like states can't enforce immigration.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 2, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Has never been absolute
> 
> Ever try to buy a Stinger Missile?


I build my own out of bottle rockets, roman candles & duct tape.
This is my busiest time of the year


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> This is interesting and especially interesting coming from a Supreme Court justice. This is the thing that makes me stay and discuss useless topics. This is something I have missed.
> 
> I can't fathom that Roberts argued the 2nd allows restrictions like with a felon. It does NOT. Other parts of the Constitution explains how one can have their Constitutional rights removed through due process but that part is not in the 2nd.
> 
> Do I believe the court, even this court will turn away all restrictions? No, I believe they may uphold restrictions in things like court houses or schools but I don't think they will uphold restrictions in large public areas.


Again, the issue isn’t what the Court may or may not do.

The issue is will conservatives learn from this mistake and use democratic consensus to change the law – small, incremental change through the political process as they’ve advocated for for decades.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem for the right is that a ‘conservative’ Court is a double-edged sword – particularly when it comes to gun cases.
> 
> Of course, if the Court were truly ‘conservative’ it would have respected “states’ rights” and ruled in favor of New York.


But that is a Constitutional right the state has little control over.
We have the right to keep & BEAR arms. 
"Shall not be infringed"


----------



## pknopp (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the issue isn’t what the Court may or may not do.
> 
> The issue is will conservatives learn from this mistake and use democratic consensus to change the law – small, incremental change through the political process as they’ve advocated for for decades.



 You mean change the Constitution? No, I don't see that happening.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 2, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


That's an encouragement for the states to keep the men combat ready & in no way limits the right of the people to keep & bear arms, which is the part that shall not be infringed.
Change the Constitution if you don't like it.
You could add something about baby murder while you're at it.
I think those are both winners you all should run with.
You'll sound like a genius to the other proggies in the safe space


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Game.
> Set.
> Match.
> 
> Some people should be executed for defying the intent of the 2A.



There is more but this should make you happy, an excerpt of the paper:

Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights​

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
James Madison (Publius) in Federalist Paper #46
arguing for the ratification of the present Constitution including the Second amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> States rights don't apply to things listed in the Constitution. Just like states can't enforce immigration.


Incorrect.

_Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”

Conservatives will seek to overturn _Obergefell _using “states’ rights” as ‘justification.’

If the states have the right to ban abortion or prohibit same-sex marriage, then they likewise have the right regulate firearms as they see fit.

The right to privacy and the individual right to possess a firearm are both in the Constitution – it’s conservative courts’ inconsistent application of “states’ rights” that’s at issue.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”
> 
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right to privacy and the individual right to possess a firearm are both in the Constitution –



the right to abortion is not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> You mean change the Constitution? No, I don't see that happening.


No – not change the Constitution.

For example, Republicans in New York need to campaign on the issue.

Residents of the state need to petition the State government to change the laws, to remove from office elected officials who enacted the laws, and elect Republican representatives to replace Democrats to have the laws repealed.

Conservatives have been preaching this for decades – they need to practice what they preach.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”
> 
> ...



 Abortion is one of the most complicated case the court could rule on. I've said, my beliefs aside I could understand the argument either way.

 The Constitution clearly does not mention abortion. The Constitution does address privacy. While not using that word, the 4th is all about privacy.

 We have expressly protecting those rights even including health care. The issue revolves around whether you believe there is a separate life worth protecting or not. Some do, some do not. If you believe it is, then the Constitutional privacy protections do not apply.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’


I attend a "Place of Worship" which has a volunteer security team, some of which a CWP holders.  The church isn't protected by gun free zone signs; it's protected by church members that are packing heat.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mehh. Concealed means concealed.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The problem for the right is that a ‘conservative’ Court is a double-edged sword – particularly when it comes to gun cases.
> 
> Of course, if the Court were truly ‘conservative’ it would have respected “states’ rights” and ruled in favor of New York.



I gather you do not support the 14th Amendment and the endeavor to restrict states from violating federally recognized and protected rights? 

Are you _really_ arguing New York has been legitimately exercising a "state's right" to write and enforce those very restrictive laws that violate the right to arms, as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment? 

In _NYSRPA_, there was no dispute* that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment was not limited to the home. 

That SCOTUS upheld their precedent and held that the right to bear arms --_is the right to carry arms in public for self defense--_ and NY's restrictive scheme violated that right, is not wild, right-wing activism. 

That NY is now trying to expand "sensitive places" to an absurd degree, was foreseen by the Court; I read *NYSRP v Bruen* as foreclosing exactly the bullshit NY is attempting (see pg's 21 & 22).

So again, is it _really_ your position that the 14th Amendment has no effect in bringing NY into alignment with the 2nd Amendment, that NY possesses a "state's right" to violate what NY admits is the right secured by the 2nd Amendment?
__________________


*  NY, in their *brief in opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari,* cited four federal Circuit decisions upholding various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they concede that those courts all say SCOTUS in_ Heller_ stands on the principle that the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home, see page 9:

"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Abortion is one of the most complicated case the court could rule on. I've said, my beliefs aside I could understand the argument either way.
> 
> The Constitution clearly does not mention abortion. The Constitution does address privacy. While not using that word, the 4th is all about privacy.
> 
> We have expressly protecting those rights even including health care. The issue revolves around whether you believe there is a separate life worth protecting or not. Some do, some do not. If you believe it is, then the Constitutional privacy protections do not apply.


No one said it did.

The Constitution codifies a right to privacy, prohibiting government from dictating to citizens whether they may have a child or not – such as compelling women to give birth by ‘banning’ abortion.

That the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution is irrelevant – it’s there because the Supreme Court says it’s there.

Likewise, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but they’re there because the Supreme Court has ruled that they are.

And because abortion is one of the most complicated cases the court could rule on, the _Roe_ Court was wise to acknowledge the right to privacy and allow individuals to decide for themselves, not the state.

Indeed, whether one believes there is a separate life worth protecting or not – that because it is belief, personal and subjective, government clearly lacks the capacity and authority to decide for citizens something so personal and subjective.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If the states have the right to ban abortion or prohibit same-sex marriage, then they likewise have the right regulate firearms as they see fit.



  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ to murder innocent children in cold blood.

  There is nothing, anywhere in the Constitution that hints at any _“right”_ for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be treated as anything at all comparable to a genuine marriage.

  The people's right to keep and bear arms, however, is explicitly stated and protected in the Second Amendment, with government being forbidden from infringing this right.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Likewise, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but they’re there because the Supreme Court has ruled that they are.



_…the right of *THE PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms…”_.

  Who are *THE PEOPLE*?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 2, 2022)

JoeMoma said:


> I attend a "Place of Worship" which has a volunteer security team, some of which a CWP holders.  The church isn't protected by gun free zone signs; it's protected by church members that are packing heat.


Again, the purpose of the thread isn’t to rehash the merits of _Bruen_ – a ruling I agree with, however ridiculous, flawed, and wrongheaded its reasoning.

The purpose of the thread is to illustrate the incompetence of the right, that ham-handed conservatives have botched the entire issue by failing to pursue incremental change via democratic consensus.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 2, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Abortion is one of the most complicated case the court could rule on.



  Only to those who refuse to see the plain and obvious truth—that the innocent victim of every abortion is a human being, who has every bit as much right to be allowed to live as every other innocent human being.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the purpose of the thread isn’t to rehash the merits of _Bruen_ – a ruling I agree with, however ridiculous, flawed, and wrongheaded its reasoning.
> 
> The purpose of the thread is to illustrate the incompetence of the right, that ham-handed conservatives have botched the entire issue by failing to pursue incremental change via democratic consensus.


So you want to throw out the Bill of Rights enumerated in the constitution in favor of democratic consensus in each state?  And you have the Bill of Rights as your avatar....give me a break!


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Of course.  We keep beating the corrupt statist pieces of shit till they surrender.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”
> 
> ...





It is truly amazing how wrong you are ALWAYS proven to be.

Time for you to hang up your fake lawyer shingle.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”
> 
> ...


What the courts will rule is that New York's new law is over broad and seeks to ban possession through a back door.  It's the liberals who made the mistake, not conservatives.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 2, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”
> 
> ...


There is no right to privacy in the constitution.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said it did.
> 
> The Constitution codifies a right to privacy, prohibiting government from dictating to citizens whether they may have a child or not – such as compelling women to give birth by ‘banning’ abortion.
> 
> ...



 If it's only there because the Supreme Court says it is, the Supreme Court said it wasn't.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> There is no right to privacy in the constitution.


Under the 1st Amendment, the people of the United States have a series of basic freedoms on how they express themselves. This typically relates to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religious expression. In turn, this creates an assumption that we have the constitutional right to carry out religious practices with privacy.

Similar to the above concerning privacy within the home, the 4th Amendment states that no one can search possessions and property without good reason or a warrant.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 3, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> The Second Amendment grants the People, not the Militia. the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed ...
> And only a devout Authoritarian Fascist Priestess or Priest could screw up that interpretation.
> ...


You're FOS.
It's called a prerequisite.

pre·req·ui·site
[prēˈrekwəzət]

NOUN

A thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is a prerequisite.

The history of militia in the United States dates from the colonial era, such as in the American Revolutionary War.
 Based on the English system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Because there was no standing English Army before the English Civil War, and subsequently the English Army and later the British Army had few regulars garrisoning North America, colonial militia served a vital role in local conflicts, particularly in the French and Indian Wars. 

Before shooting began in the American War of Independence, American revolutionaries took control of the militia system, reinvigorating training and excluding men with Loyalist inclinations.

 Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army—but, because of manpower shortages, the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war.

With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress.
 The Militia Clauses gave Congress authority for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia, and "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States", and the States retained authority to appoint officers and to impose the training specified by Congress.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said it did.
> 
> The Constitution codifies a right to privacy, prohibiting government from dictating to citizens whether they may have a child or not – such as compelling women to give birth by ‘banning’ abortion.
> 
> ...


Then you would have no problem if they ruled that nationwide concealed carry was considered a right to privacy?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> It's called a prerequisite.
> 
> pre·req·ui·site
> ...


You would have a point, IF they gave the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, and not to the People.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Then you would have no problem if they ruled that nationwide concealed carry was considered a right to privacy?


It is in 49 states already.
As far as privacy laws are concerned.
So, you can "conceal" your weapon ALL the time when you're in your house.

Being in public?
There is no expectation of privacy........... for anything.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> It is in 49 states already.
> As far as privacy laws are concerned.
> So, you can "conceal" your weapon ALL the time when you're in your house.
> 
> ...





Smokin' OP said:


> So, you can "conceal" your weapon ALL the time when you're in your house.



I can conceal it on my body, and go nearly anywhere I like.

are you now considering an illegal search and seizure to find it on my body?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> You would have a point, IF they gave the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, and not to the People.


WTF?
Every male adult person, with some exceptions *were *the militia.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> I can conceal it on my body, and go nearly anywhere I like.


NO, you can't.


Hugo Furst said:


> are you now considering an illegal search and seizure to find it on my body?


Not illegal, the owners of any business has the right to search you, if they like.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Every male adult person, with some exceptions *were *the militia.



right

"Every *male* adult person"

But the second doesn't say 'Every male adult person', it says THE PEOPLE.


women, males under the ae of 16, men over the age of 45 were allowed to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NO, you can't.
> 
> Not illegal, the owners of any business has the right to search you, if they like.


sad you believe that.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Every male adult person, with some exceptions *were *the militia.


Well, that's wrong . . .   Only free, able-bodied white male citizens of certain age were obligated BY LAW to enroll in the militia and to provide themselves with an appropriate rifle or musket (or pistol for some officers).

In your eagerness to mark out "prerequisites" on the right, you violate longstanding and inviolate canons of statutory construction (e_xpressio unius est exclusio alterius_).

You seem to recognize that powers were granted to Congress (nearly plenary, representing field preemption) but with that express framing and specificity of who is liable for service and what they must do to fulfill their obligation WHEN ENROLLED, excludes all others, especially anyone NOT ENROLLED, from any impressment of militia law.

As it stands now, with no active militia law placing any impressment of service on anyone, everyone is now of the body of citizens ("the people") recognized and whose rights are secured in the 2nd Amendment.

See, enrolled militia members have no need for a "right" to arms; everything they do, from acquiring the arm they will muster with, to its use as a militia member, is an obligation, a fulfillment of _*law*_.

You come to this discussion with the singular intent of negating the right to keep and bear arms but you have no knowledge of how the Constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof, e.g., Militia Act of 1792), actually operate.  You try to force outcomes that are impossible.

.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the issue isn’t what the Court may or may not do.
> 
> The issue is will conservatives learn from this mistake and use democratic consensus to change the law – small, incremental change through the political process as they’ve advocated for for decades.



It is amazing how corrupt the constitutional arguments you spew actually are . . . 

This response to CCJ's idiocy is for others here, it's obvious CCJ will _never_ acknowledge, let alone address my rebuttals to his anti-constitutional goofiness.

Admittedly, it has been a strange alignment of legal circumstances that allowed NY (and CA, NJ, and MD) to ignore the 2ndA / RKBA for so many years.

NY, NJ, CA and MD do not have a right to arms provision in their _*state*_ constitutions, so their state legislatures took that as permission to write whatever laws they wanted, with no boundaries or guidelines.

Because there was no state constitutional right to arms recognized and guiding them, when those gun laws were challenged, the courts of those states could not _*and did not*_ develop any sophisticated doctrine for what a right to arms _*actually is*_ in their states . . .   State courts simply became rubber stamps for the state legislatures and a significant body of really, _really_ bad law was built on a foundation of clay and sand (legally).

When those legally indefensible decisions upholding discriminatory state gun laws were appealed into the federal system, (district and federal courts of appeals), the fact that the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated under the 14thA, precluded those federal courts from even examining the 2nd Amendment's implications on those state laws.

Understand, _*THAT CONDITION PERSISTED UNTIL 2010,*_ when the Court finally did incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment in _McDonald v Chicago_.  

The lower federal courts, because the Supreme Court took a hiatus from accepting 2ndA / RKBA appeals and examining those state laws, invented illegitimate tests that always miraculously ended sustaining challenged gun laws (the "two-step inquiry"). 

SCOTUS, in _NYSRPA_, in one fell swoop, knocked out a couple of those the bullshit laws and the doctrine used to sustain them; many more laws are going to be invalidated (see the GVR's SCOTUS just ordered).

Just because the enforcement by SCOTUS of the 2nd Amendment was so delayed, does not make bad laws good, make illegitimate lower court processes legitimate, or make discriminatory laws constitutional.

.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 3, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.




No....we can't escape them because we have to constantly show idiots like you that they are the supporting clause,.....the independent clause says the people get to keep and bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


Who did they give the right to Keep and Bear Arms?

The Militia, or the People?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Who did they give the right to Keep and Bear Arms?
> 
> The Militia, or the People?


People for their role in tbe militia or individual rights?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Coyote said:


> People for their role in tbe militia or individual rights?





Coyote said:


> People for their role in tbe militia



Where does it make that claim in the 2nd?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 3, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Where does it make that claim in the 2nd?


First two clauses.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 3, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two clauses.



Then you're seeing words I'm not.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 3, 2022)

Coyote said:


> People for their role in tbe [sic] militia or individual rights?



  Can you point to anywhere in the Constitution where a right is stated as belonging to THE PEOPLE, where it is stated or implied that _“THE PEOPLE”_ means anything other than every individual citizen, that the right so stated is not a right belonging without qualification to each individual?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 4, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> right
> 
> "Every *male* adult person"
> 
> But the second doesn't say 'Every male adult person', it says THE PEOPLE.


Yes, people *in the militia.*


Hugo Furst said:


> women, males under the ae of 16, men over the age of 45 were allowed to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.


So, people needed to have guns for hunting food and for protection of their homes.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 4, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> sad you believe that.


It's stupid you don't.
The owners can refuse your entry or ask you to vacate their premises


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Well, that's wrong . . .   Only free, able-bodied white male citizens of certain age were obligated BY LAW to enroll in the militia and to provide themselves with an appropriate rifle or musket (or pistol for some officers).
> 
> In your eagerness to mark out "prerequisites" on the right, you violate longstanding and inviolate canons of statutory construction (e_xpressio unius est exclusio alterius_).


Then why did they put “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", FIRST?


Abatis said:


> You seem to recognize that powers were granted to Congress (nearly plenary, representing field preemption) but with that express framing and specificity of who is liable for service and what they must do to fulfill their obligation WHEN ENROLLED, excludes all others, especially anyone NOT ENROLLED, from any impressment of militia law.





Abatis said:


> As it stands now, with no active militia law placing any impressment of service on anyone, everyone is now of the body of citizens ("the people") recognized and whose rights are secured in the 2nd Amendment.


That's because we have a standing military, and national guard now.
Back then there were none, except the militia.
The government can reinstate the draft, at the drop of a hat.


Abatis said:


> See, enrolled militia members have no need for a "right" to arms; everything they do, from acquiring the arm they will muster with, to its use as a militia member, is an obligation, a fulfillment of _*law*_.
> 
> You come to this discussion with the singular intent of negating the right to keep and bear arms but you have no knowledge of how the Constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof, e.g., Militia Act of 1792), actually operate.


I don't you do.

Militia Act* establishes conscription under federal law* On May 8, 1792, Congress passes the second portion of the Militia Act, requiring that every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years be enrolled in the militia.


Abatis said:


> You try to force outcomes that are impossible.





Abatis said:


> .


No, they aren't you just choose to ignore the half of the 2nd amendment.

In order to actually fire a weapon, what do you need to do so?
You have the weapon what else do you need?


----------



## Abatis (Jul 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, they aren't you just choose to ignore the half of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> In order to actually fire a weapon, what do you need to do so?
> You have the weapon what else do you need?



In order to make an intelligent, reasoned, constitutional argument, what do you need?

You need your foundational premise to be philosophically consistent with the founding principles of the Constitution and legally coherent with the Constitution's enforcement by SCOTUS.

You talk of "perquisites" but the one you need, does not exist.

In your case, your entire argument _needs_ the 2nd Amendment to "do" something, primarily to grant / give/ create / establish _something_.

You need the 2nd Amendment to conjure an undefined regulatory power which acts upon what is stated to be a "right" to keep and bear arms possessed by "the people" -- but not really _*the* people . . .  _According to you, this "the people" is really a group of select arms keepers and bearers that Congress assembles and approves, and then imposes on the states, without any respect or regard for who the states call out as possessing the right to arms.

It's hilarious that you think you are being profoundly intellectual but really you are just wallowing in leftist, collectivist, anti-constitutional ignorance.

In legal reality, the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence. The Court has reaffirmed that principle multiple times in boringly consistent fashion for now going on 146 years.

For this particular tack you are sailing, that truth means that the right to arms cannot be argued to be conditioned or qualified by words it does not depend upon to exist. It also means the right cannot be argued to be dependent upon a structure, _the organized militia_, that is itself, _entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence_.

Your position is in conflict with the basic conception of rights under the Constitution (as exceptions of powers never granted).  Your position is at odds with every philosophical principle grounding the Constitution and legal determination enforcing the Constitution.

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> In order to make an intelligent, reasoned, constitutional argument, what do you need?


Facts, which by the way, you never answered my question.
Which was ammunition.
You can pull the trigger all you want, they weapon will never fire unless you put a round in the chamber, FIRST.
See that's a prerequisite, one action can't be completed without another.


Abatis said:


> You need your foundational premise to be philosophically consistent with the founding principles of the Constitution and legally coherent with the Constitution's enforcement by SCOTUS.


It *is *foundational and philosophically consistent with the founders of the constitution. 
Why do you think the founders *started *the amendment with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"?
NOT by SCOTUS.
They ignored the first part too.



Abatis said:


> You talk of "perquisites" but the one you need, does not exist.


YES, it does.


Abatis said:


> In your case, your entire argument _needs_ the 2nd Amendment to "do" something, primarily to grant / give/ create / establish _something_.


Yes, it does, maintain the security of a free state.


Abatis said:


> You need the 2nd Amendment to conjure an undefined regulatory power which acts upon what is stated to be a "right" to keep and bear arms possessed by "the people" -- but not really _*the* people . . .  _According to you, this "the people" is really a group of select arms keepers and bearers that Congress assembles and approves, and then imposes on the states, without any respect or regard for who the states call out as possessing the right to arms.


The commanders of their respective states chose the people to serve in their militia's, that true, and yes, having a gun was a bonus but if the person didn't have one, one would be provided.

The militia act of 1792 codified it.

There were two *Militia Acts* enacted by the 2nd United States Congress in 1792 that provided for the organization of militias and empowered the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.


Abatis said:


> It's hilarious that you think you are being profoundly intellectual but really you are just wallowing in leftist, collectivist, anti-constitutional ignorance.


And you're spewing RWNJ, nonsense.


Abatis said:


> In legal reality, the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence.


WTF?
The what the constitution and laws do.



Abatis said:


> The Court has reaffirmed that principle multiple times in boringly consistent fashion for now going on 146 years.


No, it didn't .


Abatis said:


> For this particular tack you are sailing, that truth means that the right to arms cannot be argued to be conditioned or qualified by words it does not depend upon to exist.


WTF?
Then why did SCOTUS rule on it then?



Abatis said:


> It also means the right cannot be argued to be dependent upon a structure, _the organized militia_, that is itself, _entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence_.


Now, you're back to ignoring the first part of the amendment.


Abatis said:


> Your position is in conflict with the basic conception of rights under the Constitution (as exceptions of powers never granted).  Your position is at odds with every philosophical principle grounding the Constitution and legal determination enforcing the Constitution.
> 
> .


No, it isn't.

You're just ignoring half of it.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> It's stupid you don't.
> The owners can refuse your entry or ask you to vacate their premises


They can refuse entry, they can ask me to leave, but they CAN'T search me


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 4, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> They can refuse entry, they can ask me to leave, but they CAN'T search me


That's true.
They can't search you without your consent, the latter applies.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> That's true.
> They can't search you without your consent, the latter applies.


Then you were wrong when you posted this.



Smokin' OP said:


> Not illegal, the owners of any business has the right to search you, if they like.



as you were in many other of your assertations..

GO away, you're boring.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2022)

JoeMoma said:


> So you want to throw out the Bill of Rights enumerated in the constitution in favor of democratic consensus in each state?  And you have the Bill of Rights as your avatar....give me a break!


What did naïve, clueless conservatives think the State would do after the ruling – start handing out Glocks in Times Square.

This was a miscalculation on the part of the right – a true political blunder.

“Sensitive locations include:

Airports, Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, Courthouses, Daycare facilities, playgrounds and other locations where children gather, Educational Institutions, Emergency shelters, including domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters, Entertainment venues, Federal, state, and local government buildings, Health and medical facilities, Houses of worship, Libraries, Polling sites, Public demonstrations and rallies, Public transportation including subways and buses, Times Square

The law also makes 'no carry' the default for private property, unless deemed permissible by property owners.”









						Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision
					

Governor Hochul signed landmark legislation to strengthen New York's gun laws and bolster restrictions on concealed carry weapons.




					www.governor.ny.gov
				




And all of the above restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner in violation of the Second Amendment, in no manner infringing on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never ruled on validity of such restrictions.

Residents of the state can obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon but with nowhere to carry – the consequence of the reckless stupidity of the right.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More gun free zones, because they work. 









						A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones | National Review
					

It is getting hard to ignore that mass public shooters keep choosing to attack locations where victims can’t defend themselves. We studied 13 different types of gun-control laws as well as the impa…




					www.nationalreview.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2022)

pknopp said:


> If it's only there because the Supreme Court says it is, the Supreme Court said it wasn't.


Wrong.

The right to privacy still exists – neither _Griswold _nor _Eisenstadt _have been overturned.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What did naïve, clueless conservatives think the State would do after the ruling – start handing out Glocks in Times Square.
> 
> This was a miscalculation on the part of the right – a true political blunder.
> 
> ...


Great.

They've figured out how to keep honest citizens unarmed in a majority of the state.

When are they going to devise a law that will disarm criminals?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 4, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> More gun free zones, because they work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Imagine if you will conservatives having sought incremental change of firearm laws through democratic consensus rather than the sledgehammer of judicial fiat.

In time New York would be a shall issue state, absence such onerous restrictions.

The new law and its restrictions are the fault of conservatives, the result of their incompetence and stupidity.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The right to privacy still exists – neither _Griswold _nor _Eisenstadt _have been overturned.



 Of course it does but the court has ruled that it doesn't apply to the taking of another life.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Imagine if you will conservatives having sought incremental change of firearm laws through democratic consensus rather than the sledgehammer of judicial fiat.
> 
> In time New York would be a shall issue state, absence such onerous restrictions.
> 
> The new law and its restrictions are the fault of conservatives, the result of their incompetence and stupidity.


 The restrictions come from liberal loons subverting law abiding citizens Constitutional right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the purpose of the thread isn’t to rehash the merits of _Bruen_ – a ruling I agree with, however ridiculous, flawed, and wrongheaded its reasoning.
> 
> The purpose of the thread is to illustrate the incompetence of the right, that ham-handed conservatives have botched the entire issue by failing to pursue incremental change via democratic consensus.


Unconstitutional bullshit shall stop immediately, without the need for "consensus."

If you want consensus, amend the constitution.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Every male adult person, with some exceptions *were *the militia.


But the right of THE PEOPLE was protected.

you gun grabbing motherfuckers love to forget that. It's so fucking inconvenient to your bullshit argument.

Again, if you don't like it, amend it. Otherwise go fuck yourself.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 4, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> But the right of THE PEOPLE was protected.
> 
> you gun grabbing motherfuckers love to forget that. It's so fucking inconvenient to your bullshit argument.
> 
> Again, if you don't like it, amend it. Otherwise go fuck yourself.


To amend the Constitution they have to have 2/3rds of the States to vote to hold a Convention and that will never happen. The only other way is a 2/3rds vote in Congress and that won't happen because every politician from states in the South and Mid-West that votes for an Amendment to the second know they would see a recall vote started the next day or their asses out of office on the next election .


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 4, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> To amend the Constitution they have to have 2/3rds of the States to vote to hold a Convention and that will never happen. The only other way is a 2/3rds vote in Congress and that won't happen because every politician from states in the South and Mid-West that votes for an Amendment to the second know they would see a recall vote started the next day or their asses out of office on the next election .


He only wants "consensus" when it's "easy" to get his gun-grabbing way.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jul 4, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> He only wants "consensus" when it's "easy" to get his gun-grabbing way.


One reason we have the Bill of Rights is to protect those rights tyranny of the majority.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Facts, which by the way, you never answered my question.
> Which was ammunition.
> You can pull the trigger all you want, they weapon will never fire unless you put a round in the chamber, FIRST.
> See that's a prerequisite, one action can't be completed without another.



I understood your metaphor.  You don't understand, you have it backwards; the militia isn't the prerequisite upon which the armed citizenry depends, the armed citizenry is the prerequisite that allows the civil authorities to call forth, in time of need, those liable to serve (a subset of those able to bear arms / with arms in their hands) and form an organized militia, (following the process and direction of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16).



Smokin' OP said:


> It *is *foundational and philosophically consistent with the founders of the constitution.



No, your idea stands in opposition to the most fundamental foundational principle of *conferred powers and retained rights*.  Government only has the specific (thus limited) express powers granted to it, and everything not conveyed to the care and control of the federal government is retained by the states or the people (as rights).  



Smokin' OP said:


> Why do you think the founders *started *the amendment with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"?
> NOT by SCOTUS.
> They ignored the first part too.



The "first part" doesn't do anything.  The declaratory clause is legally inert, it does not direct any action or mandate any condition.  



Smokin' OP said:


> The commanders of their respective states chose the people to serve in their militia's,



No, Congress did.



Smokin' OP said:


> that true, and yes, having a gun was a bonus but if the person didn't have one, one would be provided.



No, the law compelled those citizens obligated to enroll, to provide himself with an appropriate firearm and ammo and accessories.  Note, no part of that is the exercise of a right.



Smokin' OP said:


> The militia act of 1792 codified it.
> 
> There were two *Militia Acts* enacted by the 2nd United States Congress in 1792 that provided for the organization of militias and empowered the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection.



Correct and the canon of *e*_*xpressio unius est exclusio alterius* _compels us to accept that because the law specifies exactly who is bound under it, everyone else is excepted out.  Your continued citation of militia law as guiding anything pertaining to the right to arms (a right being an _*exception*_ of government power) is legally incoherent.  



Smokin' OP said:


> And you're spewing RWNJ, nonsense.



No, I'm explaining to you, trying to instruct you in the true nature of things.



Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> The what the constitution and laws do.



You are really making a conscious choice to stand on the proposition that the Constitution and laws grant / give / create / establish our rights?


----------



## Abatis (Jul 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, it didn't .



Yes, it did . . . 

*Supreme Court, 1876:* "The right . . . of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

*Supreme Court, 1886:* "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

*Supreme Court, 2008:* "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . .”​
The Court again in _NYSRPA_ re-re-re-affirms the right to arms is an original, fundamental, fully retained, pre-existing right possessed by the individual citizen, neither conditioned or qualified by a citizen's association in a state or federal structure such as the organized militia.



Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Then why did SCOTUS rule on it then?



They have repeatedly ruled for 146 years that the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution, thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence . . .   We _finally_ have a decision in _NYSRPA_ that is a good step forward in enforcing the protection of the 2nd Amendment as extended to the states by the 14th Amendment.  

There is still much to advance, there are literally thousands of unconstitutional laws to invalidate / strike-down . . .  In reality, the RKBA / 2ndA is 80 years behind the enforcement of other rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights.



Smokin' OP said:


> Now, you're back to ignoring the first part of the amendment.



I'm not ignoring, I'm just quoting the Supreme Court explaining that the declaratory clause is a statement of principle not active, positive law, thus it cannot impart conditioning and qualifying action on the right.

The declaratory clause reaffirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state). 

The 2nd Amendment does not speak to militia in any *legal *manner, shape or form. The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.

I am talking about _actual legal effect_, not any mystical effect that SCOTUS has never recognized and only collectivist anti-gun political activists have advanced.  The lines of militia jurisprudence and RKBA/2ndA jurisprudence in SCOTUS are entirely different and separate. 

The cases where SCOTUS decided militia issues are a separate and distinct track from the Court's RKBA/2ndA cases; if your theory had any truth to it, there would be some overlap.  We would read multiple instances where the Supreme Court is citing the 2nd Amendment for some instruction or direction on how to decide militia issues . . . But there is NOTHING, in fact, the Supreme Court only mentioned the 2nd Amendment once in a militia case, it was _the very first one_, in 1820, in a dissent by Justice Story, only to say the 2nd Amendment offered NOTHING to inform the Court on militia issues.

Your position is a hollow theory without any support in the philosophical, historical or legal record of the nation.  If you actually knew the case law, you would know your theory began in the federal (lower court) system in 1942.

.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jul 4, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


Be glad, it says we'll regulated, not we'll governed. Meaning that's a can of worms you don't want to open.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> _Roe v. Wade_ was overturned predicated on “states’ rights.”
> 
> ...


That's a lie, the state can no more restrict the exercise of the 2nd as they can restrict certain words they don't like. You morons do not comprehend that the enumerated rights are equal, what applies to one must be applicable to all unless specified in the amendment.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> But the right of THE PEOPLE was protected.


Yes, *some *people.


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> you gun grabbing motherfuckers love to forget that. It's so fucking inconvenient to your bullshit argument.


Keep repeating the same NRA/RWNJ talking points, maybe one day it will come true.
"We're a comin' fer yer guns" 35-year old lie.

Just like corporate tax cuts.


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Again, if you don't like it, amend it. Otherwise go fuck yourself.


Fuck you retard. 
Don't need to amend it, just stop ignoring half of the amendment.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Be glad, it says we'll regulated, not we'll governed. Meaning that's a can of worms you don't want to open.


WTF?
They mean the same thing.

Kids Definition of regulate 1 :* to bring under the control of authority* : make rules concerning Laws regulate water quality. 2 : to control the time, amount........

gov·ern​  (gŭv′ərn)
_v._ *gov·erned*, *gov·ern·ing*, *gov·erns*
_v.tr._
*1. *To make and administer the public policy and affairs of (a state, for example); exercise sovereign authority over.
*2. *To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
*3. *To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.
*4. *To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses.
*5. *To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game.
*6. *_Grammar_ To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They'll push it to the point where the Supreme Court will have to say there's a right to own a gun, but not a right to walk around wherever you like with it. Because that's what the 2A says


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Yes, it did . . .
> 
> *Supreme Court, 1876:* "The right . . . of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."​​*Supreme Court, 1886:* "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "​​*Supreme Court, 2008:* "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . .”​
> The Court again in _NYSRPA_ re-re-re-affirms the right to arms is an original, fundamental, fully retained, pre-existing right possessed by the individual citizen, neither conditioned or qualified by a citizen's association in a state or federal structure such as the organized militia.
> ...





Abatis said:


> Yes, it did . . .
> 
> *Supreme Court, 1876:* "The right . . . of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose' [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."​


Their opinion, they ignored the first part too.


Abatis said:


> ​*Supreme Court, 1886:* "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "​​*Supreme Court, 2008:* "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . .”​
> The Court again in _NYSRPA_ re-re-re-affirms the right to arms is an original, fundamental, fully retained, pre-existing right possessed by the individual citizen, neither conditioned or qualified by a citizen's association in a state or federal structure such as the organized militia.
> 
> 
> ...


See, there you go, ignoring the first part, under the guise of *legal.*
Then continue to ignore " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".


Abatis said:


> The 2nd Amendment has never been examined to inform on any aspect of militia organization or control.
> 
> I am talking about _actual legal effect_, not any mystical effect that SCOTUS has never recognized and only collectivist anti-gun political activists have advanced.  The lines of militia jurisprudence and RKBA/2ndA jurisprudence in SCOTUS are entirely different and separate.
> 
> ...


No, your position, as well as the SCOTUS is hollow.
Of course, you refer to them, they ignored to first part too.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Their opinion, they ignored the first part too.



Why is *your* opinion, arrogantly expressed in dozens of posts now, with zero support, maintained by you only through denial of foundational principles and the clear and unambiguous determinations of SCOTUS stating you are wrong, how is your bullshit in any way legitimate and deserving of respect?

Why should anyone believe you or pay attention to you?

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Why is *your* opinion, arrogantly expressed in dozens of posts now, with zero support, maintained by you only through denial of foundational principles and the clear and unambiguous determinations of SCOTUS stating you are wrong, how is your bullshit in any way legitimate and deserving of respect?
> 
> Why should anyone believe you or pay attention to you?
> 
> .


*NOT, *my opinion.
Words have meanings.
Why are you ignoring them?

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

It's right there.
Why did they even include it?
Why did they include that..............FIRST?

If they meant that everyone could be armed, we didn't they just write " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?


----------



## Abatis (Jul 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> *NOT, *my opinion.
> Words have meanings.
> Why are you ignoring them?
> 
> ...



All you keep proving is you either never learned anything about how the Bill of Rights came to be or your devotion and obeyance to the leftist anti-gun agenda demands you pervert history and law.

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Abatis said:


> All you keep proving is you either never learned anything about how the Bill of Rights came to be


Really?
Doyou even know what the bill of rights were based on?


Abatis said:


> or your devotion and obeyance to the leftist anti-gun agenda demands you pervert history and law.
> 
> .


You're FOS.
I own 5 weapons myself, all registered with my county's sheriff's department.

You're the one perverting law, as well as others, ignoring the words of half of an amendment.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jul 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> They mean the same thing.
> 
> Kids Definition of regulate 1 :* to bring under the control of authority* : make rules concerning Laws regulate water quality. 2 : to control the time, amount........
> ...


No they don't mean the same thing. Hence the completely different word.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> No they don't mean the same thing. Hence the completely different word.


You must be proud of that Trump U. reading "comprehension" correspondence course "degree".


----------



## Rogue AI (Jul 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> You must be proud of that Trump U. reading "comprehension" correspondence course "degree".


You must be proud of being completely stupid. The Constitution is not a collection of similes to be perverted at need.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> You must be proud of being completely stupid. The Constitution is not a collection of similes to be perverted at need.


So, you can't comprehend definitions, then you call others stupid, typical Trumptard.

 A centrifugal* governor* used in some old-fashioned mechanical* speedometers* and* speed-regulating* equipment.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jul 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, you can't comprehend definitions, then you call others stupid, typical Trumptard.
> 
> A centrifugal* governor* used in some old-fashioned mechanical* speedometers* and* speed-regulating* equipment.
> 
> View attachment 666375


Your silly attempts at semantics fail. Your ignorance to the fact each word in the Constitution was specifically chosen to give the citizens the greatest freedom without regard to the governing body. Regulated has definitions outside government purview. Unless you are historically illiterate, you would understand how that difference is immense and meaningful.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 5, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Your silly attempts at semantics fail. Your ignorance to the fact each word in the Constitution was specifically chosen to give the citizens the greatest freedom without regard to the governing body. Regulated has definitions outside government purview.


Like what?
Isn't the constitution kinda *IN *the government "purview"?


Rogue AI said:


> Unless you are historically illiterate, you would understand how that difference is immense and meaningful.


Really?
How different and meaningful?


----------



## Abatis (Jul 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> Doyou even know what the bill of rights were based on?



I know the specifics of the demands made by the states and the Anti-Federalists for amendments to be submitted to the states for ratification . . .

I know the arguments made by the Federalists in vehement opposition to adding a bill of rights . . .

I know what the proposed amendments were, that were submitted to Congress (Madison) by the states which were the templates for the proposed amendments he submitted to Congress (IOW, Madison wasn't the author of the BoR, he was the editor) . . .

I know the debates over Madison's proposed provisions in the House (Senate debates were secret) and how the wording of the final proposed amendments submitted to the states for ratification, was settled on . . .

I know Madison's speech to Congress, introducing the 12 proposed amendments and I know he wanted to insert them into the particular Articles and Sections they modified or pertained to, not as an addendum to the Constitution . . .

I know why Madison wrote two proposed amendments himself, intending to codify Federalist arguments* against* adding a bill of rights into the Bil of Rights, as rules for interpretation (and they became the 9th and 10th Amendments) . . .

I know that if you knew and understood all that, you would not be saying the stupid shit you have been saying.



Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.



You are deeply opposed to the general right to keep and bear arms and deeply object to any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as recognizing and securing the ability of regular citizens to acquire, possess and own guns, free from close, constant governmental administration and oversight of every aspect of the citizen's ability to acquire, possess and own guns.

That is your foundational belief about the citizen's right to arms and *every* consideration of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is directed towards fulfilling that belief and maintaining complete government control over the citizen's ability of own and use guns.

Your belief is so deep, no oppositional argument will be considered or debated, thus your knowledge, understanding and "interpretation" of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment in particular, is entirely a closed loop, it is an "ends" based endeavor.

That end, _restricting the ability of citizens to acquire, possess and use guns,_ justifies whatever *means* you choose to employ, including misrepresentation and lies about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment, as long as the leftist, statist, authoritarian objective to restrict rights is advanced.



Smokin' OP said:


> I own 5 weapons myself, all registered with my county's sheriff's department.



Wonderful, that sort of hypocrisy is exactly as expected.



Smokin' OP said:


> You're the one perverting law, as well as others, ignoring the words of half of an amendment.



And again, your idea, that the right is conditioned, qualified, restricted or limited by "the words of the first half of the amendment" must be rejected because it demands we accept the premise that the right to arms is granted or given or created by the words of the 2nd Amendment, that the right depends on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

For one to accept your position it demands the rejection of the entire structure of the Constitution and the foundation of rights theory under the Constitution and the rejection of the Supreme Court's enforcement of *every* right under the Constitution.

Your position demands the rejection and dismantlement of _*all*_ of it, back all the way to the concept of unalienable rights, just to maintain your hatred for the right to arms.  That is the fundamental flaw in 99% of anti-gunners; your hate for guns is the foundation for your beliefs about the 2ndAmendment, instead of your position being driven by actual understanding the 2nd Amendment.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 6, 2022)

'Before _Bruen_, the definition of "good cause" in these three states was at the discretion of local licensing authorities. In conservative jurisdictions, licensing officials routinely accepted that self-defense constituted "proper cause" to issue a license. In liberal jurisdictions, however, licensing officials required substantially more reason, requiring anything from running a cash business to death threats to justify the license.

The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement. But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide. In online gun owner forums, one can find color-coded maps divided into green, yellow, and red jurisdictions ("green" for shall issue jurisdictions, "yellow" for moderately difficult may issue jurisdictions, and "red" for jurisdictions in which it was virtually impossible to get a license). Where feasible, gun owners used these maps to move to jurisdictions with friendlier licensing officials. And for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.

_Bruen_ has destroyed that compromise. After _Bruen_, all jurisdictions that require licenses to carry firearms must do so on a "shall issue" basis. And the result is predictable: legislatures in "may issue" states are scrambling to ban guns from as many locations as possible, including government buildings, stadiums, theaters, parks, financial institutions, public transportation, and restaurants. Most devastatingly for gun owners, New York is trying to ban firearms on all private property at which the property owner does not post a sign welcoming firearms. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, when asked where permit holders would be allowed to carry weapons, candidly replied, "Probably some streets."'









						Bruen Broke The Deal
					

A guest post from Prof. Robert Leider (GMU)




					reason.com
				




Conservatives have made things more difficult for gunowners.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 6, 2022)

pknopp said:


> Of course it does but the court has ruled that it doesn't apply to the taking of another life.


Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 6, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The law will be contested and the TRUMPCourt will rule in favor of more guns


----------



## Rogue AI (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 'Before _Bruen_, the definition of "good cause" in these three states was at the discretion of local licensing authorities. In conservative jurisdictions, licensing officials routinely accepted that self-defense constituted "proper cause" to issue a license. In liberal jurisdictions, however, licensing officials required substantially more reason, requiring anything from running a cash business to death threats to justify the license.
> 
> The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement. But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide. In online gun owner forums, one can find color-coded maps divided into green, yellow, and red jurisdictions ("green" for shall issue jurisdictions, "yellow" for moderately difficult may issue jurisdictions, and "red" for jurisdictions in which it was virtually impossible to get a license). Where feasible, gun owners used these maps to move to jurisdictions with friendlier licensing officials. And for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.
> 
> ...


Not really Hochul just blew a ton of tax dollars to see another unconstitutional infringement get shot down in court. You do realize the next step if you folks keep this nonsense up, right? The whole permit program will be deemed an unconstitutional burden on the citizens and you lose every inch of progress you've made.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 6, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> They'll push it to the point where the Supreme Court will have to say there's a right to own a gun, but not a right to walk around wherever you like with it. Because that's what the 2A says


There will likely be suits filed challenging the constitutionality of venues designated as sensitive places where guns aren’t allowed.

The Court certainly won’t compel private property owners to allow guns on their property – including businesses open to the public; that wouldn’t be very ‘conservative.’

And even if the Court should rule that certain public places cannot be designated sensitive places, there would still remain many public venues where carrying guns aren’t allowed.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There will likely be suits filed challenging the constitutionality of venues designated as sensitive places where guns aren’t allowed.
> 
> The Court certainly won’t compel private property owners to allow guns on their property – including businesses open to the public; that wouldn’t be very ‘conservative.’
> 
> And even if the Court should rule that certain public places cannot be designated sensitive places, there would still remain many public venues where carrying guns aren’t allowed.



Problem is, clearly planes cannot have guns.... so it'd be a bit difficult to not have places where guns can't be. Though this court, anything is possible.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The new law lays out a strict licensing process to obtain a concealed-carry permit and a list of locations deemed “sensitive” – including Times Square – where firearm possession will be illegal, according to the legislative text. Other areas defined as sensitive include government-owned buildings, schools, health care facilities, places of worship and public transportation. People who carry a gun in a prohibited location could be charged with a felony under the law.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...


/———/ That’s how gun grabbing democrats roll.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 6, 2022)

Coyote said:


> First two  clauses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“ appears to regularly escape tbe notice of the retardican gun cult.


/——-/ Smarter people than you say otherwise: 








						What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?
					

The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.




					reason.com
				



Justice Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase _bear arms_ cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.


----------



## pknopp (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.
> 
> No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm.



 You really aren't saying anything.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement.



What "compromise?  Yes, some states enumerated, recognized and respected a right to arms being possessed by their citizens and these states did not.

These states without a right to arms provision in their state constitutions assumed that meant their residents had no right to arms and government possessed unquestionable authority to write whatever gun restrictions they desired.

That was what SCOTUS fixed because that assumption is incompatible with the right recognized and secured by the federal 2nd Amendment, as enforced on the states by the 14th Amendment.

 The 14th Amendment brought the principles of constitutional supremacy and federal preemption down on the heads of those state governments that operated as if a right to arms did not exist.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide.



"Looked the other way", what does that even mean? That the restrictive states begrudgingly tolerated other states with a constitutionally recognized right to arms and legally recognized right to carry?

What authority does one state have to pass judgement on another state's gun policy?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.



That is a disingenuous statement . . .   The chosen few, those who were granted a state permission to carry were never among the general population of "gun owners".  In the wording of the law the people asking permission had to prove they were distinguished from a "normal" gun owning citizen.  

It is no surprise those favored by the government enjoyed wider latitude in law; of course, people chosen by government to be given special dispensation enjoyed extra privileges.  

The very existence of those prior special conditions of very few limitations, reserved for the chosen few connected enough to be issued a license, is proof that the new restrictions being proposed are illegitimate.  



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _Bruen_ has destroyed that compromise.



What is it with this writer imagining these "compromises"?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> After _Bruen_, all jurisdictions that require licenses to carry firearms must do so on a "shall issue" basis.



Oh, horrors!  The question is, since NY recognized it was _settled law_ that the right recognized and secured by the federal 2nd Amendment is the right of [regular, law-abiding, not prohibited to own a gun] citizens to carry a gun for self defense outside the home / in public, why didn't they change their discriminatory policies in the years following _McDonald_?

It's obvious NY was happy and content to continue ignoring SCOTUS and continuing to violate the rights of NY residents.  NY believed it could create a zone in the USA where the Bill of Rights did not apply.

The Court remedied that situation; NY is trying to continue illegitimate policy . . .



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the result is predictable: legislatures in "may issue" states are scrambling to ban guns  . . .



. . . and invent ways to dismiss the ruling and ignore SCOTUS.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Most devastatingly for gun owners, New York is trying to ban firearms on all private property at which the property owner does not post a sign welcoming firearms.



Seems to me to be subject to challenge under the takings clause.  What other fundamental rights could be subject to such a decree?

Could a hotel assume that if they do not specifically allow homosexual relations, such activity is banned on their premises?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> New York Governor Kathy Hochul, when asked where permit holders would be allowed to carry weapons, candidly replied, "Probably some streets."'



Well, leftist statist authoritarians who are accustomed to ignoring rights, are gonna say leftist, statist authoritarian shit to try to justify illegitimate actions to continue ignoring rights . . .



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives have made things more difficult for gunowners.



What a goofy take . . . Hochol's proposals are no different than the Black Codes enacted in some states to try to justify their state to continue infringing on the rights of citizens.

All SCOTUS did was to force NY to recognize "gunowners" in the state as *citizens* owed all the protections of all the rights recognized and secured under the COTUSA.

Her proposals will never be enforced; if they do become law they will be enjoined and stayed in the lower federal courts . . .  If the 2nd Circuit does side with Hochol, all the better; emergency relief will be granted by SCOTUS and NY (and the 2nd Circuit) will get what they deserve.

.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 'Before _Bruen_, the definition of "good cause" in these three states was at the discretion of local licensing authorities. In conservative jurisdictions, licensing officials routinely accepted that self-defense constituted "proper cause" to issue a license. In liberal jurisdictions, however, licensing officials required substantially more reason, requiring anything from running a cash business to death threats to justify the license.
> 
> The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement. But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide. In online gun owner forums, one can find color-coded maps divided into green, yellow, and red jurisdictions ("green" for shall issue jurisdictions, "yellow" for moderately difficult may issue jurisdictions, and "red" for jurisdictions in which it was virtually impossible to get a license). Where feasible, gun owners used these maps to move to jurisdictions with friendlier licensing officials. And for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.
> 
> ...




Banning guns through location is prohibited in the latest Supreme Court ruling....they are violating the Constitution as they do this..


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 6, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.
> 
> No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm.


/———-/ The right to life, Liberty and pursuit  of happiness is absolute.


----------

