John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
I'll translate your post:
"As long as what I prefer is ok, to hell with everyone else's 2A rights."
Recent New York Anti-Carry Law now at Supreme Court
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
I'll translate your post:
"As long as what I prefer is ok, to hell with everyone else's 2A rights."
YeshuaIsa53
Member
If the Supreme Court judges have upheld our Constitutional rights, I praise
and thank them.
and thank them.
I am going to thank the OP (Bushmaster1313) for posting this. Additionally I would comment that his position in post #8 is pretty clear and well reasoned (We need to consider this well and not advocate for our own extremes, like mail order machine guns and the right to keep and bear grenades, rockets and Claymore) as is his position in post #13.
The case before the Supreme Court is clearly stated and has to do with the refusal to grant permits. Justice Sotomayer got the case because it was her turn in the rotation, she could have passed it on to someone else or refused it. And keep in mind, this is not a ruling on the facts of the case, it is a a request to set aside a ruling by New York Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reinstating the provisions of the law while New York appeals the decision of the Federal District Court Judge setting the law aside.
It is an interesting case and the OP explained it well.
The case before the Supreme Court is clearly stated and has to do with the refusal to grant permits. Justice Sotomayer got the case because it was her turn in the rotation, she could have passed it on to someone else or refused it. And keep in mind, this is not a ruling on the facts of the case, it is a a request to set aside a ruling by New York Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reinstating the provisions of the law while New York appeals the decision of the Federal District Court Judge setting the law aside.
It is an interesting case and the OP explained it well.
Last edited:
In your opinion does that include a neutron bomb or other atomic weapons? How about tactical nukes for example?
There has to be a line somewhere between weapons of war held by the military of recognized, legitimate governments, and weapons available to the average Joe Schmoe.
Where do we draw that line?
That is the question that must be answered by a majority of reasonable people, and once it is determined, that must then be implemented.
I believe in the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment as strongly as anyone, but I also recognize the reality that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Just as the right to free speech doesn't include shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, there has to be SOME logical, reasonable limit to the right to arm oneself for self defense, and even to the right of a free people to bear arms in opposition to tyranny - as these rights are described in the 2nd Amendment.
The real question then becomes, where do we draw that line?
Different people have legitimately held different opinions on the answer to the question of where that line lies.
Not everyone who disagrees with my opinion on where to draw the line is my enemy. They aren't all dictators-in-the-making either. At least some of them just honestly have a different perspective than me - based on their life experiences and opinions.
I am a gun enthusiast. Others who view this question from a different perspective aren't necessarily wanting to put their boot on my neck - they just view the question from a different perspective.
While I lean towards the idea of a Constitutional Convention (I'm actually a member of the Convention of States organization), we have to be sure we fully recognize and guard against the potential implications of a Convention of States. The final outcome could actually be the opposite of what we really want.
IF there were an actual Constitutional Convention ever convened, then EVERYTHING would be "up for grabs". Any or even ALL of the rights recognized and enumerated under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be on the table and could be completely nullified or redefined (at least in terms of our Constitution) - if the majority were to vote that eliminating those rights was what THEY wanted to do.
While THEY can't actually revoke our God-given rights, THEY can make exercising those rights against THEIR laws, and then punish us accordingly. Look at how exercising these God-given rights are being prosecuted around the world if you don't think so.
So then, in my mind, the next question becomes; how much faith do you have in the average (or more precisely in the MAJORITY opinion of) Americans these days?
When I see polls that say that over 50% of Millennials don't even recognize the right to free exercise of religion as an essential component of the 1st Amendment, that gives me pause in regards to the idea of convening a Constitutional Convention.
IMO, if we ever get to the point of convening an actual Convention of States, we better make damn sure that we have the majority opinion on OUR side - or else we're very likely going to regret it.
Sorry for the rant - just one Boomer's opinion regarding some things we really need to think about in light of current events....
Last edited:
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
"We" hold the majority of states. Solve the few shortcomings of the Founders (birth right citizenship, Senate by state appointments, the Warren Court decision re bicameral state houses both by population as opposed to one by land mass…, get rid of any .gov racial or gender discrimination I.e. minority set asides and quotas …) clarify 2 A… Constitutional Convention or amendment.
Otherwise, yes on tanks, missiles, auto weapons… etc.
One cannot ignore or constrain one explicit, fundamental right without endangering all of them.
Otherwise, yes on tanks, missiles, auto weapons… etc.
One cannot ignore or constrain one explicit, fundamental right without endangering all of them.
John Patrick. This is not a forum for political discussion. If it was I would note you need to brush up on your Constitutional law.
here are the major rules found in the forum instructions:
this is not where you discuss what the 2nd Amendment means to you or a free people in general. We already know that. We understand the philosophy.
This is not where you bash the states/locations that suffer under restrictive gun laws.
This is not where we chat about which states have good gun laws.
This is not where you post your "What If's".
This is not where you swear your "Cold Dead Fingers" oath. Print it out and pin it to your door.
This is not for the latest news about some scumbag shooting someone or getting arrested with a gun.
This is not where you post your latest AR or AK.
This is not for discussing gun and ammo prices or availability.
This is not where you post which movie stars or talking heads are currently bashing the 2nd Amendment.
This is not where you moan about liberalism or the changes in our culture.
This is not for the latest news on a gunowner using a gun lawfully for self dense, unless it is simply an OUTSTANDING situation that we can use in the halls of Congress.
This is not where you will fix everything wrong with our society.
here are the major rules found in the forum instructions:
this is not where you discuss what the 2nd Amendment means to you or a free people in general. We already know that. We understand the philosophy.
This is not where you bash the states/locations that suffer under restrictive gun laws.
This is not where we chat about which states have good gun laws.
This is not where you post your "What If's".
This is not where you swear your "Cold Dead Fingers" oath. Print it out and pin it to your door.
This is not for the latest news about some scumbag shooting someone or getting arrested with a gun.
This is not where you post your latest AR or AK.
This is not for discussing gun and ammo prices or availability.
This is not where you post which movie stars or talking heads are currently bashing the 2nd Amendment.
This is not where you moan about liberalism or the changes in our culture.
This is not for the latest news on a gunowner using a gun lawfully for self dense, unless it is simply an OUTSTANDING situation that we can use in the halls of Congress.
This is not where you will fix everything wrong with our society.
This country historically seems to operate on thirds. Issues play along the line of 1/3 want it, 1/3 don't want it, and 1/3 don't care and don't want to be bothered. If we ever attempt a Convention of The States, we need to be aware it will be like anesthesia before surgery. There is always the possibility you may not wake up from it. Currently, the odds do not necessarily seem to be in our favor.
What??
I don't know what forum you are on my friend, but many of the topics that you listed are very commonly discussed on this forum. New gun laws, ammo deals, what new gun you bought(ar or ak or rpg alike), recent events that may bode well for, or be dangerous to keeping the right to bear arms. I would say that this IS the place to discuss many of those topics mentioned. I'm not advocating for bashing anyone or any state on here for whatever reason I'm just saying, you're trying to limit the conversation severely, when it doesn't seem necessary at all. Nobody is saying "to hell with those in blue states" or anything close to that. Most of us are sympathetic to those willing to stay in their home in a blue state to help in the fight against unconstitutional gun laws. I don't understand what spurred your opposition to the conversation on this thread, but it seems to lack merit.
I don't know what forum you are on my friend, but many of the topics that you listed are very commonly discussed on this forum. New gun laws, ammo deals, what new gun you bought(ar or ak or rpg alike), recent events that may bode well for, or be dangerous to keeping the right to bear arms. I would say that this IS the place to discuss many of those topics mentioned. I'm not advocating for bashing anyone or any state on here for whatever reason I'm just saying, you're trying to limit the conversation severely, when it doesn't seem necessary at all. Nobody is saying "to hell with those in blue states" or anything close to that. Most of us are sympathetic to those willing to stay in their home in a blue state to help in the fight against unconstitutional gun laws. I don't understand what spurred your opposition to the conversation on this thread, but it seems to lack merit.
Obviously you have not read the rules on this forum. Those statements I posted are a quote, I did not make them up.
READ this > RULES on HOW to use the 2A Forum
The forum moderators limit the discussion topics for each forum. The second amendment forum is for things that need action, where you can write to your representatives or to post information and second amendment activities actually going on. The OP in this thread posted about an ongoing complicated legal process. As it says at the top of the forum: read the forum rules. There are forums here for other topics, but you will find politics generally off limits. I speak as someone who has been dinged by the moderator.
READ this > RULES on HOW to use the 2A Forum
The forum moderators limit the discussion topics for each forum. The second amendment forum is for things that need action, where you can write to your representatives or to post information and second amendment activities actually going on. The OP in this thread posted about an ongoing complicated legal process. As it says at the top of the forum: read the forum rules. There are forums here for other topics, but you will find politics generally off limits. I speak as someone who has been dinged by the moderator.
Last edited:
Heinz, if you want to be a Moderator, you need to apply to the administrators for the job. It isn't a self-appointed position.
If a post is over the line, rest assured, they'll handle it without your help.
Speaking as another person who has also been dinged by a moderator - at least a time or three...
Last edited:
rkittine
Member
Also a New York State and New York City unrestricte pistol permit holder since the early 70s. Also taught the Firearms safety course required for SOME counties of New York back in those days.
After the court ruling, I had to take a 18 hour course, which I actually think should be a state wide requirement. There are times I go to my Private club and leave when I see certain cars in the parking lot.
After the court ruling, I had to take a 18 hour course, which I actually think should be a state wide requirement. There are times I go to my Private club and leave when I see certain cars in the parking lot.
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
Haha, haha.
Read my post, it is exclusively 2A and Constitution.
Unlike every post of yours, which are anti-2A and anti-Constitutional.
You may disagree with my 2A absolutism, but then you are disagreeing with the 2A as written. Arguing against any written provision of the Constitution opens a Pandora's Box permitting "interpretation" of other plainly written provisions.
Want 2A, or 1A restrictions? Call for a Constitutional Convention or amendment.
After Bruen, the 2A test is strict scrutiny, which requires a minimally intrusive law or regulation in furtherance of a legitimate "state" interest.
Gun control laws only restrict the law abiding citizen, not the lawless. Ergo, gun control is counter productive as well as contrary to the Constitution.
ETA: The calls to action are clear: Advocate for a Constitutional Convention, amendments.
Last edited:
All Supreme Court Justices are assigned various circuits to hear such matters on first review. Justice Sotomayor is assigned the Second Circuit, in which all the Districts of New York reside . . .
OP
Mr. Muggins is correct. What's interesting is that Justice Sotomayor wanted to see New York's response in the legal equivalent of "immediately if not sooner."
Last edited:
OP
Note: There are Legislators, Governors and Judges in this country that talk and act as if they believe Bruen was decided wrongly by an illegitimate Supreme Court. Moreover, they take the position that even if Bruen is assumed to be binding, the language of of the Decision and the Concurrences allows a State to pass and enforce any law directed to reducing the scourge of Gun Violence.
Last edited:
What is the recourse on a national level? I vaguely recall threats, or actually witholding federal funds for states not enforcing the national speed limit in the '70s that was enacted to counter the first oil crisis starting in '73
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
Any judge in any court who takes his or her Constitutional duties and rule of law seriously will not tolerate this NY law. Any judge that believes in legislating from the bench and basing decisions strictly on his or her political views won't care about SCOTUS decisions.
A good judge will follow the Bruen precedent regardless of personal views on the subject.
A good judge will follow the Bruen precedent regardless of personal views on the subject.
OP
1) Give to organizations (llke the NRA) that bring the best legal challenges with the best legal talent.
2) Elect Presidents who will nominate judges that will give the 2A a fair chance in court.
3) What I do not know how to do? Persuade State Legislators not to vote for extreme anti-2A positions.
Being in Washington State, only #1 is a viable option.
I suspect the Supreme Court will have to get involved here too before long.
Last edited:
Similar threads
