Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 problem for the right is that a ‘conservative’ Court is a double-edged sword – particularly when it comes to gun cases.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.
I build my own out of bottle rockets, roman candles & duct tape.Has never been absolute
Ever try to buy a Stinger Missile?
Again, the issue isn’t what the Court may or may not do.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.
But that is a Constitutional right the state has little control over.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.
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.
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.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.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Some people should be executed for defying the intent of the 2A.
"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."
Incorrect.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.
The right to privacy and the individual right to possess a firearm are both in the Constitution –
No – not change the Constitution.You mean change the Constitution? No, I don't see that happening.
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.
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.‘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.’
‘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.
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.
No one said it did.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
