I didn't say carrying is moronic. You did. You claim we should all disarm (except the criminals). What is abundantly clear is that you're a fucking idiot.
Give up my guns?
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
I didn't say carrying is moronic. You did. You claim we should all disarm (except the criminals). What is abundantly clear is that you're a fucking idiot.
No I said that handguns and assualt rifles should be banned. They would be illegal for criminals also.
And yes, carrying is moronic.
So you believe criminals would turn in their handguns and assault rifles once they are outlawed, do you?
Supreme Court Will Review New York City Gun Law
By Adam Liptak
Justice Kavanaugh, who replaced the more moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and created a reliable five-member conservative majority, has an expansive view of gun rights. His presence most likely means that the Supreme Court will start exploring and perhaps expanding the scope of the Second Amendment.
“It could be a landmark case with major implications for gun policy,” said Adam Winkler, the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” “The case could articulate broad principles about the Second Amendment, and especially the Second Amendment outside the home.”
Court scholars said Justice Kavanaugh’s replacement of Justice Kennedy could lead to an abrupt lurch from the court’s previous decisions.
“This is just the first case but not likely the last case where at least four justices open the way to a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws,” said Michael Waldman, the author of “The Second Amendment: A Biography,” referring to a Supreme Court rule requiring four votes to add cases to its docket.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-nyc-license.html
By Adam Liptak
- Jan. 22, 2019
Justice Kavanaugh, who replaced the more moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and created a reliable five-member conservative majority, has an expansive view of gun rights. His presence most likely means that the Supreme Court will start exploring and perhaps expanding the scope of the Second Amendment.
“It could be a landmark case with major implications for gun policy,” said Adam Winkler, the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” “The case could articulate broad principles about the Second Amendment, and especially the Second Amendment outside the home.”
Court scholars said Justice Kavanaugh’s replacement of Justice Kennedy could lead to an abrupt lurch from the court’s previous decisions.
“This is just the first case but not likely the last case where at least four justices open the way to a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws,” said Michael Waldman, the author of “The Second Amendment: A Biography,” referring to a Supreme Court rule requiring four votes to add cases to its docket.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-nyc-license.html
I have not had time to pour over the actual law being challenged in greatre detail but here is the synopsis:
"The New York City ordinance challenged in the new case allows residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits. But the ordinance forbids them to take their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they are unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition."
But in my legal opinion, the foundation of this ordinance could easily fall to a challenge of it being arbitrary and violating the 2d amendment by regulating guns in a burdensome and arbitrary fashion. I think the "even when they are unloaded and locked.." proves the law was not meant to regulate for safety but to restrict entirely and would fall under a challenge of excessiveness. Happy to discuss the legal points in this if you can put aside your gun hyperbole. I have a background in law and really like Constitutional issues and this specific case is loaded with great analysis potential.
"The New York City ordinance challenged in the new case allows residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges within the city limits. But the ordinance forbids them to take their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they are unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition."
But in my legal opinion, the foundation of this ordinance could easily fall to a challenge of it being arbitrary and violating the 2d amendment by regulating guns in a burdensome and arbitrary fashion. I think the "even when they are unloaded and locked.." proves the law was not meant to regulate for safety but to restrict entirely and would fall under a challenge of excessiveness. Happy to discuss the legal points in this if you can put aside your gun hyperbole. I have a background in law and really like Constitutional issues and this specific case is loaded with great analysis potential.
I think this is a good example of the "law of unintended consequences". It's clear this law had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with harassing people you don't agree with. Read the comments at the NYT. Even liberals see this law for what it really is. And now the SC may just rule it unconstitutional and thereby make open/concealed carrying in public legal in NY City.
The problem with the law is you have legislatures who act before they think and think they are pretty slick in coming up with a law that achieves an end they wish to have rather than pass laws to address problems or offer solutions. I could hand that law to a class of 1L students and they could tear it shit in one class.
And these delegates have no legal staff or brains to see that?
And these delegates have no legal staff or brains to see that?
You just described current logic in policy making in the US.
From both sides to be fair.
EDIT: and shows how special interests pushing their way in leads to policy first law making which often runs counter to the Constitution.
For all of the people sharply on both sides of the 2A, this case is not going to be your battle ground. The SC saw low hanging fruit of a really shitty worded law and can tear that down in a heartbeat.
The real challenge and the reason why it was taken on was the HOW the decision will be written to narrow or widen the scope of the precedent. Methinks that even with a conservative majority they are going to act the law on the fact specific basis and strike it down rather than create some national precedent usable in other states to expand or restrict gun laws.
You're obviously correct here. But has the Court ever enshrined a right to carry or even to transport your legally owned weapons? NYC could argue that they have the right to totally ban transport of firearms, so this was a less restrictive alternative.