What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
9,556
Reaction score
4,360
Points
938
Location
Florida
You must be proud of being completely stupid. The Constitution is not a collection of similes to be perverted at need.
So, you can't comprehend definitions, then you call others stupid, typical Trumptard.

A centrifugal governor used in some old-fashioned mechanical speedometers and speed-regulating equipment.

1657021583937.png
 

Rogue AI

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
6,334
Reaction score
6,633
Points
1,938
Location
Wisconsin
So, you can't comprehend definitions, then you call others stupid, typical Trumptard.

A centrifugal governor used in some old-fashioned mechanical speedometers and speed-regulating equipment.

View attachment 666375
Your silly attempts at semantics fail. Your ignorance to the fact each word in the Constitution was specifically chosen to give the citizens the greatest freedom without regard to the governing body. Regulated has definitions outside government purview. Unless you are historically illiterate, you would understand how that difference is immense and meaningful.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
9,556
Reaction score
4,360
Points
938
Location
Florida
Your silly attempts at semantics fail. Your ignorance to the fact each word in the Constitution was specifically chosen to give the citizens the greatest freedom without regard to the governing body. Regulated has definitions outside government purview.
Like what?
Isn't the constitution kinda IN the government "purview"?
Unless you are historically illiterate, you would understand how that difference is immense and meaningful.
Really?
How different and meaningful?
 

Abatis

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
643
Points
940
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
Really?
Doyou even know what the bill of rights were based on?

I know the specifics of the demands made by the states and the Anti-Federalists for amendments to be submitted to the states for ratification . . .

I know the arguments made by the Federalists in vehement opposition to adding a bill of rights . . .

I know what the proposed amendments were, that were submitted to Congress (Madison) by the states which were the templates for the proposed amendments he submitted to Congress (IOW, Madison wasn't the author of the BoR, he was the editor) . . .

I know the debates over Madison's proposed provisions in the House (Senate debates were secret) and how the wording of the final proposed amendments submitted to the states for ratification, was settled on . . .

I know Madison's speech to Congress, introducing the 12 proposed amendments and I know he wanted to insert them into the particular Articles and Sections they modified or pertained to, not as an addendum to the Constitution . . .

I know why Madison wrote two proposed amendments himself, intending to codify Federalist arguments against adding a bill of rights into the Bil of Rights, as rules for interpretation (and they became the 9th and 10th Amendments) . . .

I know that if you knew and understood all that, you would not be saying the stupid shit you have been saying.

You're FOS.

You are deeply opposed to the general right to keep and bear arms and deeply object to any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as recognizing and securing the ability of regular citizens to acquire, possess and own guns, free from close, constant governmental administration and oversight of every aspect of the citizen's ability to acquire, possess and own guns.

That is your foundational belief about the citizen's right to arms and every consideration of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is directed towards fulfilling that belief and maintaining complete government control over the citizen's ability of own and use guns.

Your belief is so deep, no oppositional argument will be considered or debated, thus your knowledge, understanding and "interpretation" of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment in particular, is entirely a closed loop, it is an "ends" based endeavor.

That end, restricting the ability of citizens to acquire, possess and use guns, justifies whatever means you choose to employ, including misrepresentation and lies about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment, as long as the leftist, statist, authoritarian objective to restrict rights is advanced.

I own 5 weapons myself, all registered with my county's sheriff's department.

Wonderful, that sort of hypocrisy is exactly as expected.

You're the one perverting law, as well as others, ignoring the words of half of an amendment.

And again, your idea, that the right is conditioned, qualified, restricted or limited by "the words of the first half of the amendment" must be rejected because it demands we accept the premise that the right to arms is granted or given or created by the words of the 2nd Amendment, that the right depends on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

For one to accept your position it demands the rejection of the entire structure of the Constitution and the foundation of rights theory under the Constitution and the rejection of the Supreme Court's enforcement of every right under the Constitution.

Your position demands the rejection and dismantlement of all of it, back all the way to the concept of unalienable rights, just to maintain your hatred for the right to arms. That is the fundamental flaw in 99% of anti-gunners; your hate for guns is the foundation for your beliefs about the 2ndAmendment, instead of your position being driven by actual understanding the 2nd Amendment.

.
 
Last edited:
OP
C_Clayton_Jones

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
67,576
Reaction score
25,304
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
'Before Bruen, the definition of "good cause" in these three states was at the discretion of local licensing authorities. In conservative jurisdictions, licensing officials routinely accepted that self-defense constituted "proper cause" to issue a license. In liberal jurisdictions, however, licensing officials required substantially more reason, requiring anything from running a cash business to death threats to justify the license.

The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement. But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide. In online gun owner forums, one can find color-coded maps divided into green, yellow, and red jurisdictions ("green" for shall issue jurisdictions, "yellow" for moderately difficult may issue jurisdictions, and "red" for jurisdictions in which it was virtually impossible to get a license). Where feasible, gun owners used these maps to move to jurisdictions with friendlier licensing officials. And for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.

Bruen has destroyed that compromise. After Bruen, all jurisdictions that require licenses to carry firearms must do so on a "shall issue" basis. And the result is predictable: legislatures in "may issue" states are scrambling to ban guns from as many locations as possible, including government buildings, stadiums, theaters, parks, financial institutions, public transportation, and restaurants. Most devastatingly for gun owners, New York is trying to ban firearms on all private property at which the property owner does not post a sign welcoming firearms. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, when asked where permit holders would be allowed to carry weapons, candidly replied, "Probably some streets."'


Conservatives have made things more difficult for gunowners.
 
OP
C_Clayton_Jones

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
67,576
Reaction score
25,304
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
Of course it does but the court has ruled that it doesn't apply to the taking of another life.
Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm.
 

Rogue AI

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
6,334
Reaction score
6,633
Points
1,938
Location
Wisconsin
'Before Bruen, the definition of "good cause" in these three states was at the discretion of local licensing authorities. In conservative jurisdictions, licensing officials routinely accepted that self-defense constituted "proper cause" to issue a license. In liberal jurisdictions, however, licensing officials required substantially more reason, requiring anything from running a cash business to death threats to justify the license.

The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement. But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide. In online gun owner forums, one can find color-coded maps divided into green, yellow, and red jurisdictions ("green" for shall issue jurisdictions, "yellow" for moderately difficult may issue jurisdictions, and "red" for jurisdictions in which it was virtually impossible to get a license). Where feasible, gun owners used these maps to move to jurisdictions with friendlier licensing officials. And for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.

Bruen has destroyed that compromise. After Bruen, all jurisdictions that require licenses to carry firearms must do so on a "shall issue" basis. And the result is predictable: legislatures in "may issue" states are scrambling to ban guns from as many locations as possible, including government buildings, stadiums, theaters, parks, financial institutions, public transportation, and restaurants. Most devastatingly for gun owners, New York is trying to ban firearms on all private property at which the property owner does not post a sign welcoming firearms. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, when asked where permit holders would be allowed to carry weapons, candidly replied, "Probably some streets."'


Conservatives have made things more difficult for gunowners.
Not really Hochul just blew a ton of tax dollars to see another unconstitutional infringement get shot down in court. You do realize the next step if you folks keep this nonsense up, right? The whole permit program will be deemed an unconstitutional burden on the citizens and you lose every inch of progress you've made.
 
OP
C_Clayton_Jones

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
67,576
Reaction score
25,304
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
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
There will likely be suits filed challenging the constitutionality of venues designated as sensitive places where guns aren’t allowed.

The Court certainly won’t compel private property owners to allow guns on their property – including businesses open to the public; that wouldn’t be very ‘conservative.’

And even if the Court should rule that certain public places cannot be designated sensitive places, there would still remain many public venues where carrying guns aren’t allowed.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
38,239
Reaction score
5,655
Points
1,130
There will likely be suits filed challenging the constitutionality of venues designated as sensitive places where guns aren’t allowed.

The Court certainly won’t compel private property owners to allow guns on their property – including businesses open to the public; that wouldn’t be very ‘conservative.’

And even if the Court should rule that certain public places cannot be designated sensitive places, there would still remain many public venues where carrying guns aren’t allowed.

Problem is, clearly planes cannot have guns.... so it'd be a bit difficult to not have places where guns can't be. Though this court, anything is possible.
 

Cellblock2429

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
26,231
Reaction score
7,941
Points
360
Location
New York
‘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.’


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.
/———/ That’s how gun grabbing democrats roll.
 

Cellblock2429

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
26,231
Reaction score
7,941
Points
360
Location
New York
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.
/——-/ Smarter people than you say otherwise:
Justice Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.
 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
46,621
Reaction score
15,732
Points
2,210
Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm.

You really aren't saying anything.
 

Abatis

Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
643
Points
940
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement.

What "compromise? Yes, some states enumerated, recognized and respected a right to arms being possessed by their citizens and these states did not.

These states without a right to arms provision in their state constitutions assumed that meant their residents had no right to arms and government possessed unquestionable authority to write whatever gun restrictions they desired.

That was what SCOTUS fixed because that assumption is incompatible with the right recognized and secured by the federal 2nd Amendment, as enforced on the states by the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment brought the principles of constitutional supremacy and federal preemption down on the heads of those state governments that operated as if a right to arms did not exist.

But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide.

"Looked the other way", what does that even mean? That the restrictive states begrudgingly tolerated other states with a constitutionally recognized right to arms and legally recognized right to carry?

What authority does one state have to pass judgement on another state's gun policy?

for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.

That is a disingenuous statement . . . The chosen few, those who were granted a state permission to carry were never among the general population of "gun owners". In the wording of the law the people asking permission had to prove they were distinguished from a "normal" gun owning citizen.

It is no surprise those favored by the government enjoyed wider latitude in law; of course, people chosen by government to be given special dispensation enjoyed extra privileges.

The very existence of those prior special conditions of very few limitations, reserved for the chosen few connected enough to be issued a license, is proof that the new restrictions being proposed are illegitimate.

Bruen has destroyed that compromise.

What is it with this writer imagining these "compromises"?

After Bruen, all jurisdictions that require licenses to carry firearms must do so on a "shall issue" basis.

Oh, horrors! The question is, since NY recognized it was settled law that the right recognized and secured by the federal 2nd Amendment is the right of [regular, law-abiding, not prohibited to own a gun] citizens to carry a gun for self defense outside the home / in public, why didn't they change their discriminatory policies in the years following McDonald?

It's obvious NY was happy and content to continue ignoring SCOTUS and continuing to violate the rights of NY residents. NY believed it could create a zone in the USA where the Bill of Rights did not apply.

The Court remedied that situation; NY is trying to continue illegitimate policy . . .

And the result is predictable: legislatures in "may issue" states are scrambling to ban guns . . .

. . . and invent ways to dismiss the ruling and ignore SCOTUS.

Most devastatingly for gun owners, New York is trying to ban firearms on all private property at which the property owner does not post a sign welcoming firearms.

Seems to me to be subject to challenge under the takings clause. What other fundamental rights could be subject to such a decree?

Could a hotel assume that if they do not specifically allow homosexual relations, such activity is banned on their premises?

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, when asked where permit holders would be allowed to carry weapons, candidly replied, "Probably some streets."'

Well, leftist statist authoritarians who are accustomed to ignoring rights, are gonna say leftist, statist authoritarian shit to try to justify illegitimate actions to continue ignoring rights . . .

Conservatives have made things more difficult for gunowners.

What a goofy take . . . Hochol's proposals are no different than the Black Codes enacted in some states to try to justify their state to continue infringing on the rights of citizens.

All SCOTUS did was to force NY to recognize "gunowners" in the state as citizens owed all the protections of all the rights recognized and secured under the COTUSA.

Her proposals will never be enforced; if they do become law they will be enjoined and stayed in the lower federal courts . . . If the 2nd Circuit does side with Hochol, all the better; emergency relief will be granted by SCOTUS and NY (and the 2nd Circuit) will get what they deserve.

.
 
Last edited:

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
99,444
Reaction score
39,147
Points
2,250
'Before Bruen, the definition of "good cause" in these three states was at the discretion of local licensing authorities. In conservative jurisdictions, licensing officials routinely accepted that self-defense constituted "proper cause" to issue a license. In liberal jurisdictions, however, licensing officials required substantially more reason, requiring anything from running a cash business to death threats to justify the license.

The result was an uneasy compromise. Residents in conservative jurisdictions could obtain licenses to carry guns effectively on a shall-issue basis, while licenses in liberal areas were extremely difficult to obtain. Liberal state legislatures fought to preserve their good-cause licensing requirement. But they also looked the other way when conservative jurisdictions widely issued licenses, even though those licenses were unrestricted and usually valid statewide. In online gun owner forums, one can find color-coded maps divided into green, yellow, and red jurisdictions ("green" for shall issue jurisdictions, "yellow" for moderately difficult may issue jurisdictions, and "red" for jurisdictions in which it was virtually impossible to get a license). Where feasible, gun owners used these maps to move to jurisdictions with friendlier licensing officials. And for gun owners, there were some advantages to being in a "may issue" state. Compared with traditional "shall issue" states (especially in the South) "may issue" states had very few places in which a licensed person could not legally carry a firearm.

Bruen has destroyed that compromise. After Bruen, all jurisdictions that require licenses to carry firearms must do so on a "shall issue" basis. And the result is predictable: legislatures in "may issue" states are scrambling to ban guns from as many locations as possible, including government buildings, stadiums, theaters, parks, financial institutions, public transportation, and restaurants. Most devastatingly for gun owners, New York is trying to ban firearms on all private property at which the property owner does not post a sign welcoming firearms. New York Governor Kathy Hochul, when asked where permit holders would be allowed to carry weapons, candidly replied, "Probably some streets."'


Conservatives have made things more difficult for gunowners.


Banning guns through location is prohibited in the latest Supreme Court ruling....they are violating the Constitution as they do this..
 

Cellblock2429

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
26,231
Reaction score
7,941
Points
360
Location
New York
Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.

No right is ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute’ – whether it’s the right to privacy or the right to possess a firearm.
/———-/ The right to life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness is absolute.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top