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

[Bob Blaylock]

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]

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]

‘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.

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

 

[westwall]

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.

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

Time for you to hang up your fake lawyer shingle.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

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]

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.

There is no right to privacy in the constitution.

 

[pknopp]

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.

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

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

.

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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

NO, you can't.

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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]

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 (expressio 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]

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]

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.