New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen Thread

[Darkwind]

Bullshit]

Laws in Chicago say "no guns"

Laws five miles away..."No problem"

And law-abiding citizens don't bring in guns. Criminals do.

Criminals do NOT care about laws.

Geography means nothing.

 

[Lesh]

And law-abiding citizens don't bring in guns. Criminals do.

Criminals do NOT care about laws.

Geography means nothing.

Bullshit. When it's legal to buy a gun and transport it five fucking miles and sell it...they do it.

 

[Missourian]

• In 2020, per capita murder rates were 40% higher in states won by Donald Trump than those won by Joe Biden.
• 8 of the 10 states with the highest murder rates in 2020 voted for the Republican presidential nominee in every election this century.

Third Way

www.thirdway.org

This isn't a study..it's some dumbass like you writing a blog.

Hell, it might be you.



Now get the eff outta here with this weak bullshit.

 

[Missourian]

Bullshit. When it's legal to buy a gun and transport it five fucking miles and sell it...they do it.

It's not legal for a citizen of one state to sell a handgun in any other state than there own or to sell one to a resident of another state without going through an FFL.

 

[kyzr]

Bullshit]
Laws in Chicago say "no guns"
Laws five miles away..."No problem"

Exactly!
1. Chicago has "no guns", but a lot of criminal activity.

2. Five miles away guns are legal, with minimal criminal activity.

So where is the "killing zone"? <hint: Chicago>
Why is that? <hint: they don't lock up enough violent criminals in Chicago>

 

[Abatis]

Oh look!

Another thread derailed by an unhinged leftist troll's rants that have nothing to do with the tread topic.

They just cannot allow a discussion to exist, focused on the Constitution and the reasoning of the Court deciding the constitutionality of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘In recognizing a constitutionally protected right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, the court is telling us all that we are unsafe, but our elected representatives cannot rely on evidence-backed solutions to this violence. Instead, we must defend ourselves with deadly force. This response does not seek to present a thorough discussion of the failings in Bruen. Time, and the collective brain trust of my more experienced colleagues, will bring these to light. Instead, I seek only to point out a few of the ways that the court has moved our country in a dangerous direction, in reckless disregard for the safety of our communities and our democracy.

In his opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas returns multiple times to the theme that somehow the Second Amendment has fallen into disfavor before the courts — that the means-end scrutiny of the now-defunct two-step analysis relegated to legislators and eventually judges the decision of whether protecting the right is “really worth insisting upon.” This theme has become popular among gun rights advocacy groups, though it has been thoroughly discredited.’

The right to fear, in public: Our town square after Bruen - SCOTUSblog

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Esther Sanchez-Gomez is the senior litigation attorney with Giffords Law Center. Last week, the juris doctors of the Supreme Court looked at the gun violence epidemic in our count

www.scotusblog.com

In his concurrence, Alito lies about those who support the may issue provision of the law, falsely stating that they don’t understand the fear of those who wish to carry handguns for self-defense.

Alito’s lie unwittingly exposes the fundamental flaw of conservative jurisprudence concerning the regulation of firearms, which is to surrender to fear and abandon any efforts to address crime that doesn’t involve violence.

Bruen is yet another example of the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of conservative jurists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is CHICAGO that has the strictest gun laws in the nation. It is CHICAGO the routinely, year after year, in the top five gun violence deaths.

Gun Control does not work. Full stop.

The numbers prove it.

Did you realize that New Yorks unconstitutional gun law has been on the books since the early 1900's. Crime in NYC, all during that time was elevated more often than not.

Clearly, it wasn't the gun law that lowered crime in NYC during the late 80s and early 90s. It was a better-policing policy.

Wrong.

As already correctly noted: the gun violence in Chicago is the consequence of firearms lawfully purchased on other states with lax gun laws then unlawfully brought into the City.

 

[Abatis]

‘In recognizing a constitutionally protected right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, the court is telling us all that we are unsafe, but our elected representatives cannot rely on evidence-backed solutions to this violence. Instead, we must defend ourselves with deadly force.

Wrong. The Court is saying states and cities cannot make laws that restrict an original, fundamental, fully retained right. That means by default, that certain policy proposals for laws that restrict the right are off the table.

This response does not seek to present a thorough discussion of the failings in Bruen. Time, and the collective brain trust of my more experienced colleagues, will bring these to light. Instead, I seek only to point out a few of the ways that the court has moved our country in a dangerous direction, in reckless disregard for the safety of our communities and our democracy.

It is no surprise that the Senior Litigation Attorney with Giffords Law Center does not understand that there is no right to be safe and that fact is among the reasons why the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themself, must be respected and protected.

In his opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas returns multiple times to the theme that somehow the Second Amendment has fallen into disfavor before the courts . . . This theme has become popular among gun rights advocacy groups, though it has been thoroughly discredited.’

Not a surprising opinion coming from the "scholars" from the Duke Center for Second Amendment Eradication.

Alito’s lie unwittingly exposes the fundamental flaw of conservative jurisprudence concerning the regulation of firearms, which is to surrender to fear and abandon any efforts to address crime that doesn’t involve violence.

No, Scalia's and Alito's and now Thomas' jurisprudence rests on the solid constitutional foundation that governments are forbidden to make or enforce any law that violates the right to keep and bear arms of the individual citizen. There are no special circumstances that allow government to evade that iron-clad directive.

Whatever public policy is discussed to address crime and the criminal misuse of firearms in particular, those proposals (and enactments) must not intrude or restrain the right to keep and bear arms.

Bruen is yet another example of the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of conservative jurists.

LOL.

 

[Darkwind]

Wrong.

As already correctly noted: the gun violence in Chicago is the consequence of firearms lawfully purchased on other states with lax gun laws then unlawfully brought into the City.

Wrong. As noted from historical proof, gun violence is a product of lax enforcement of jail sentencing.

An absolute truth that you cannot get around is that those who would commit crimes with guns will NEVER obey ANY gun law.