You must be proud of being completely stupid. The Constitution is not a collection of similes to be perverted at need.You must be proud of that Trump U. reading "comprehension" correspondence course "degree".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You must be proud of being completely stupid. The Constitution is not a collection of similes to be perverted at need.You must be proud of that Trump U. reading "comprehension" correspondence course "degree".
So, you can't comprehend definitions, then you call others stupid, typical Trumptard.You must be proud of being completely stupid. The Constitution is not a collection of similes to be perverted at need.
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.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
Like what?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.
Really?Unless you are historically illiterate, you would understand how that difference is immense and meaningful.
Really?
Doyou even know what the bill of rights were based on?
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.
Which places a restriction on the right to privacy, it doesn’t eliminate it.Of course it does but the court has ruled that it doesn't apply to the taking of another life.
The law will be contested and the TRUMPCourt will rule in favor of more guns
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.'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.
There will likely be suits filed challenging the constitutionality of venues designated as sensitive places where guns aren’t allowed.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.
/———/ That’s how gun grabbing democrats roll.‘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.
/——-/ Smarter people than you say otherwise: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.
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 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.
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 . . .
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.
'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.
/———-/ The right to life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness is absolute.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.