Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Abortion is one of the most complicated case the court could rule on.
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!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.
‘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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.There is no right to privacy in the constitution.
You're FOS..
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.
.
Then you would have no problem if they ruled that nationwide concealed carry was considered a right to privacy?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.
You would have a point, IF they gave the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, and not to the People.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.
It is in 49 states already.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.
So, you can "conceal" your weapon ALL the time when you're in your house.
WTF?You would have a point, IF they gave the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, and not to the People.
NO, you can't.I can conceal it on my body, and go nearly anywhere I like.
Not illegal, the owners of any business has the right to search you, if they like.are you now considering an illegal search and seizure to find it on my body?
WTF?
Every male adult person, with some exceptions were the militia.
sad you believe that.NO, you can't.
Not illegal, the owners of any business has the right to search you, if they like.
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).WTF?
Every male adult person, with some exceptions were the militia.
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.
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.
