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

[ThunderKiss1965]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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).

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.

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

No, Congress did.

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.

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 expressio 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.

And you're spewing RWNJ, nonsense.

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

But the right of THE PEOPLE was protected.

Yes, some people.

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.

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]

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]

‘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.

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]

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.



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.



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.

.

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.

​

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.



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.



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.

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".

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.

.

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

 

[Abatis]

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]

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]

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"?

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]

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?

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]

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.

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

 

[Smokin' OP]

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".