yanici
NES Member
The thread drift here is something else. Might be better to solve societal problems on a new thread, huh?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Does this mean anything in Massachusetts? In other words, if someone is 20 years old, are you saying they can now get an LTC? I VERY highly doubt it. If so, please provide proof of it either having happened, or a statement from FRB that they are now doing this.
strangenh
NES Member
There were already dry states. They made it an amendment so they could ban it within states that weren't going to go dry. Remember, back then the Commerce Clause was not read as the over-extended mess it is now.
Dench
NES Member
State rights is another can of worms.
We still have the current problem of state saying it's OK with thr feds saying now. Which is a serious issue for a ton of reasons.
What authority does the federal government have to do that besides "reasons?"
strangenh
NES Member
Because we now have an over-read Commerce Clause. If they had today's Commerce Clause cases, it's likely "lawmakers" back then wouldn't have bothered with an amendment for prohibition, but just done the same as with drug laws now. Back then, it was clear a federal law banning alcohol couldn't affect local production, just interstate/national commerce. Now, the CC is so overread, there's almost no possibility of winning an "all made here in state" case. Talking about "rights" - since there's no right to alcohol in the US, and wasn't then, prohibition wasn't enacted as an amendment because of the thought there was such a right, but because they wanted to have prohibition throughout the country, within as well as among all states. That's why they did an amendment. There being an individual (or other) right was not the reason. That's also why individual states were able to ban alcohol previously (because there was no individual right to it).
Didn't either Montana or Wyoming try that with guns made in state?
Texas suppressors. Still in the works.
This whole discussion is about the courts. The courts recognize your "rights" as defined in the Constitution. Any other "natural" rights you have are not relevant to the court. You don't have to like this, but it is what it is. Conflating these two things, "rights" and rights, is counterproductive. Fere free to work on changing the constitution if you want.
God, that commerce clause. I know people joke about telling the founders to clarify with the 2nd amendment if they had a Time Machine… I’d extend that to clarifying the limits on the commerce clause to.
It’s like a gift wrapped tool for authoritarians to seize more federal power. And the courts just role with it. What a joke.
Dench
NES Member
The Constitution was made to outline things for morons that may not be obvious. That's the entire point of the document. It's essentially a guide for morons and a**h***s to follow. That's why they only put certain things in it - shit that was worth mentioning.
Drugs existed back in ye old days. But the founders werent surrounded by a bunch of statist karens so they didn't have the perceived need to remind everyone they are allowed to ingest whatever they want.
If the founders knew how retarded society would quickly turn into I'm sure we'd have a Constitution the size of the Bible.
pastera
NES Member
Dealers would still be restricted from transferring to anyone without an LTC - this was only against the federal law restricting FFLs from transferring handguns to anyone under 21.
pastera
NES Member
The founders were aware of the karens of the day (there were plenty) and the evil lure of power and money - they did all that was necessary in the constitution to protect freedom except to spell out that it is the duty of the citizen to jealously and viciously guard freedom from the insipient voter wanting only comfort and unearned ease.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Schumer is going to ask for unanimous consent..
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,953
- Likes
- 3,019
Bring it on then. Either way we're going to need the Supreme court to rule on this one way or the other. Otherwise it's just a game of whack-a-mole.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 27,005
- Likes
- 50,065
Wind up toys assemble!!1!
pastera
NES Member
Unanimous consent is 99.999% doomed to fail - if the republicans fail to have a single senator present to vote no then the fix was in already.
Just a stupid parliamentary trick to say they were blocked by the evil right.
Just a stupid parliamentary trick to say they were blocked by the evil right.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Court Allows New York to Prohibit Guns in Sensitive Places
A panel of judges said the state is allowed under the Constitution to ban guns in locations such as parks and bars.
www.wsj.com
Progress…
” A federal appeals court in New York ruled Friday that the state can prohibit permitted gun owners from carrying concealed weapons into theaters, bars, public parks and other public spaces.
The ruling is the first from a federal appeals court to broadly consider where legally licensed gun owners have a right to go armed since the Supreme Court last year announced a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment that called a range of gun regulations into question…
A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left in place the bulk of New York’s new gun-free zones, disagreeing with a trial-court judge who last year found most of them unconstitutional…
Other provisions didn’t pass muster with the appeals court, including one that required gun-license applicants to list their social-media accounts as part of the screening process...
The panel said the state couldn’t enforce another provision that effectively prohibited carrying a firearm onto private property open to the public unless the owner or lessee of that property provides affirmative consent.
The court also said it was likely unconstitutional for New York to prohibit the carrying firearms in places of worship while permitting private businesses to allow weapons on their property.‘
VTski4x4
NES Member
This is going to get interesting. New Mexico just blocked enforcement of the ban at parks citing a lack of tradition as ruled in Bruen.Court Allows New York to Prohibit Guns in Sensitive Places
A panel of judges said the state is allowed under the Constitution to ban guns in locations such as parks and bars.
Progress…
” A federal appeals court in New York ruled Friday that the state can prohibit permitted gun owners from carrying concealed weapons into theaters, bars, public parks and other public spaces.
The ruling is the first from a federal appeals court to broadly consider where legally licensed gun owners have a right to go armed since the Supreme Court last year announced a broader interpretation of the Second Amendment that called a range of gun regulations into question…
A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left in place the bulk of New York’s new gun-free zones, disagreeing with a trial-court judge who last year found most of them unconstitutional…
Other provisions didn’t pass muster with the appeals court, including one that required gun-license applicants to list their social-media accounts as part of the screening process...
The panel said the state couldn’t enforce another provision that effectively prohibited carrying a firearm onto private property open to the public unless the owner or lessee of that property provides affirmative consent.
The court also said it was likely unconstitutional for New York to prohibit the carrying firearms in places of worship while permitting private businesses to allow weapons on their property.‘
Last edited:
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Don’t want to get my hopes up on an outside bet, but it would be nice if they stepped in now that it is no longer an interlocutory affair.
Don’t want to get my hopes up on an outside bet, but it would be nice if they stepped in now that it is no longer an interlocutory affair.
See the other thread from yesterday for some discussion on the 7th's declining the IL AWB (which includes one of those videos along with Mark Smith's video):
Illinois AWB Challenge: 7th Circuit Declines to 'en banc' Case Cleared to SCOTUS
Don’t want to get my hopes up on an outside bet, but it would be nice if they stepped in now that it is no longer an interlocutory affair.
It’s still an interlocutory affair, there has been no final judgment in the case yet. The only difference is there is now no more avenues for interlocutory relief. It’s either SCOTUS or nothing.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
MaverickNH
NES Member
Second Amendment Roundup: Second Circuit Opines on New York’s Gun Restrictions
Some provisions remain enjoined, but the decision on “sensitive places” is problematic.
reason.com
Halbrook on the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, leaving some provisions enjoined and others not.
”Fourth, and finally, the circuit court overturned the injunction against enforcement of the gun ban at various "sensitive places." The court made a critical error that undercuts much of its analysis. The error arose in the court's search for historical analogues for the law's ban on firearms in public parks, although it extends to its treatment of other "sensitive places." The court's error concerned, just when we thought it was deep-sixed, the Statute of Northampton of 1328.
To be sure, the court's conclusion on parks only extended "at least insofar as the regulation prohibits firearms in urban parks, though not necessarily as to rural parks." The latter includes wilderness parks, forests, and reserves.”
Yet, in Bruen, “How many muggings take place in the forest?” the Chief Justice asked.
I see a discrepancy…
Wasn't this one of the very things the Second Amendment was put in to counteract? Didn't they want "the people" to have arms, to avoid just the "king's servants" from being the only ones who have them?
Last edited:
Do you think Mass. will look at this and change course. NOPE.
Federal judge blocks California law that would ban carrying firearms in most public places
A new California law that would have banned people from carrying firearms in most public spaces was temporarily blocked by a federal judge Wednesday.
www.usatoday.com
Roadglide
NES Member
Not overnight. But if things like this keep progressing in our favor (thats a big if) its only a matter of time before states like MA run out of options.Do you think Mass. will look at this and change course. NOPE.
Federal judge blocks California law that would ban carrying firearms in most public places
A new California law that would have banned people from carrying firearms in most public spaces was temporarily blocked by a federal judge Wednesday.www.usatoday.com
