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

[Auld Phart]

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]

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?

 

[Auld Phart]

People for their role in tbe militia or individual rights?

People for their role in tbe militia

Where does it make that claim in the 2nd?

 

[Coyote]

Where does it make that claim in the 2nd?

First two clauses.

 

[Auld Phart]

First two clauses.

Then you're seeing words I'm not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

right

"Every male adult person"

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

Yes, people in the militia.

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.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

sad you believe that.

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

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

You try to force outcomes that are impossible.

.

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]

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.

.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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.

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.

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

YES, it does.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No, it didn't .

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?

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.

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

Then you were wrong when you posted this.

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]

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]

‘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.

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]

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.