SCOTUS strikes down anti carry NY gun law

[Swordsmyth]

TIL that god-given rights and liberty didn't come into existence until some politicians wrote the BoR.



Or the feds can just go kick rocks, like I said, Same difference.

The BoR RECOGNIZES rights from GOD.
To allow the states to ignore them is to deny they are GOD given.

You can go kick rocks.
You are siding with tyrants at the state level to satisfy some bizarre dogma about states rights that is expressly UNconstitutional since the Constitution states it is the supreme law of the land and binding on the states.

The states must obey the BoR or leave the union and if they don't they must be made to choose one or the other.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The BoR RECOGNIZES rights from GOD.

That is not what you said. You said "the rights are not GOD given" if "the BoR doesn't apply to the states".

Thus, according to your previous statement, those rights cannot have been "GOD given" prior to the existence of the BoR and its application to the states.

Because that is how "if A then B" works - as in "if that is not what you actually meant, then that's your problem, not mine". (See?)

To allow the states to ignore them is to deny they are GOD given.

No it isn't. It is to deny that the feds have any business arrogating to themselves the authority to dictate to the states on behalf of "GOD" or anyone else (the former of whom I am certain is quite capable of ensuring HIS justice be done - without needing any assistance from the feds, thank you very much) concerning whatever it is the feds do or don't happen to consider to be "rights" this month.

You are siding with tyrants at the state level [...]

No I am not. I oppose tyranny at both the state and federal levels - but I do so without making excuses or apologies for the latter just because it happens to countervail against the former once every blue moon.

And if there are not enough people in New York who give enough of a shit to do something about their tyrants, then to hell with New York.

(One might even call that "GOD's justice" ...)

[...] to satisfy some bizarre dogma about states rights that is expressly UNconstitutional since the Constitution states it is the supreme law of the land and binding on the states.

To hell with the Constitution. SCOTUS and the BoR are not coming to save you.

For each and every ruling like this one, myriad other violations of rights are routinely endorsed and perpetrated by the very same federal government, all under the rubric of the Constitution. "One step forward, a dozen steps back, one step forward, a dozen steps back, ..." is not a viable strategy for securing liberty - and if squirting Constitutional eyewash worked, then the federal government would not have become the hideously bloated behemoth that it is. (I mean, talk about "bizarre dogma" ...)

And I didn't say anything at all about "states' rights" ("dogma[tically]" or otherwise), because states don't have rights - only individual people do.

The states must obey the BoR or leave the union and if they don't they must be made to choose one or the other.

And the states & feds that have no problem violating the BoR can say exactly the same thing about the others. Again, same difference - separation of either side from the other reduces to the same thing (namely, one side telling the feds and the other side to go kick rocks, or vice versa). I don't particularly care which side takes its marbles and goes home - it would suffice that it happens. (In fact, I'd laugh my ass of if Texas, et al. were to end up seceding because they thought the feds were too tyrannical, and New York, et al. were to end up seceding because they thought the feds weren't tyrannical enough.)

 

[familydog]

The Second Amendment ALWAYS applied to the states!

https://everything.explained.today/Nunn_v._Georgia/

You do realize that Nunn v. Georgia was not a SCOTUS case, right?

 

[familydog]

Murdering babies is not found in the Bill of Rights, nor should it be there.
Guns and self defense are.
If only we could give the babies guns with which to defend themselves.

Perhaps according to the current makeup of SCOTUS. What happens when liberals hold the majority and reverse these rulings?

 

[jmdrake]

You do realize that Nunn v. Georgia was not a SCOTUS case, right?

You do realize that the SCOTUS later referenced Nunn v Georgia in the Hiller Case right? You SHOULD recognizes that because I freaking said it. Reading is fundamental. There is something in law called binding authority and something called persuasive authority. Nunn v Georgia is persuasive authority because the Georgia Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way people who were alive at the time it was written interpreted it. And you do realize that there is nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment to limit it to the federal government the way the word "Congress" limits the 1st Amendment right? Again, reading is fundamental. You should also realize that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that is is the supreme law of the land. Article VI clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

Again, reading is fundamental. So...go ahead and make your argument why the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong to interpret the 2nd Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, applied to the state even without the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. I'll wait.

 

[jmdrake]

Perhaps according to the current makeup of SCOTUS. What happens when liberals hold the majority and reverse these rulings?

Just because a liberal court might later make an idiotic ruling doesn't mean you have to buy into that idiotic ruling. A plain reading of the 2nd Amendment, and pre civil right persuasive court precedent, and common sense shows that it applies to the states and it has ALWAYS applied to the states. Again, the 1st Amendment was limited by the word "Congress." The word "Congress" is nowhere in the 1st Amendment. And the word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution at all.

 

[jmdrake]

FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

If you're gonna have feds at all, then the states should be the bosses of the feds, not the other way around.

But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the spectacle of progressives' heads exploding ...

*SIGH* The 2nd Amendment applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment and the so called "incorporation doctrine." I explained that here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...y-NY-gun-law&p=7116466&viewfull=1#post7116466

And here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...y-NY-gun-law&p=7116402&viewfull=1#post7116402

 

[Anti Federalist]

Note the difference between the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Contrast with the Second Amendment.

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.

Note that the first amendment says Congress shall pass no law. The prohibition of infringement of the Second amendment was NOT limited to Congress.

Well, I'll be dipped.

In all these years I never noticed that subtle but significant difference.

Essentially what we have here is a right considered so important that it "incorporated" itself, long before the concept of incorporation was adjudicated.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Maj Toure's Black Guns Matter gets a shout-out in Alito's concurring opinion:

//

 

[Occam's Banana]

FTR, AFAIAC the incorporation doctrine (and every other form of federal supremacy) can go kick rocks.

*SIGH* The 2nd Amendment applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment and the so called "incorporation doctrine." I explained that here:

I don't care. (By all means, file it under the "every other form of federal supremacy" option I offered, if that suits you better.)

And while we're at it, the 2nd Amendment (whether "incorporated" or not) can go kick rocks, too.

As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms should not ever be regarded as contingent upon what the Constitution does or does not say (or, more precisely, whatever the feds choose to say at any given moment about what the Constitution does or does not say, since that is really what it comes down to in actual practice). That's exactly what the anti-federalists tried to warn people about. And now, here we are, thirsting over a pleasing result[1] that should never have been left up to the feds to decree for all the states in the first place. ("All eggs, meet basket. Basket, all eggs ... What's that? You're already acquainted? You've known each other since 1788? Well, I'll be damned ...")



[1] And it is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't care. (By all means, file it under the "every other form of federal supremacy" option I offered, if that suits you better.)

And while we're at it, the 2nd Amendment (whether "incorporated" or not) can go kick rocks, too.

As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms should not ever be regarded as contingent upon what the Constitution does or does not say (or, more precisely, whatever the feds choose to say at any given moment about what the Constitution does or does not say, since that is really what it comes down to in actual practice). That's exactly what the anti-federalists tried to warn people about. And now, here we are, thirsting over a pleasing result[1] that should never have been left up to the feds to decree for all the states in the first place. ("All eggs, meet basket. Basket, all eggs ... What's that? You're already acquainted? You've known each other since 1788? Well, I'll be damned ...")



[1] And it is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.

I'm not sure I understand. The only reason I can gather for not needing a 2nd Amendment in the first place, is that you consider it to be a universal inalienable right.

Is that what you believe?

If an anti-gun group bought some property, seceded, and formed a community where guns are not allowed (except for military), would you consider that to be some violation of a God given right to bear arms?

In my opinion, if people are going to enter a voluntary pact with another (which the Constitution was originally intended to represent), it's better to be specific about the terms of the relationship than leave it to vague interpretation.

Now, if you're saying the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the Constitution isn't a voluntary pact and you never signed it, then I guess that makes sense in some cut-off-nose-to-spite-face kind of sense

 

[CaptUSA]

Anyone else read the dissent in this case?

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rUqQgvi13_8U/v0

It's a total confusing mess. It's not even talking about the right to bear arms - it's all about gun violence and the methods the states can use to curb it.

Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of
gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in
various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of
different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’
efforts to do so.

Um, no it doesn't. It just says that you can't limit people's rights in a vain attempt to reduce gun violence. In fact, your reasons for wanting to limit people's rights are completely irrelevant! And these are SC Justices!

 

[TheTexan]

Anyone else read the dissent in this case?

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rUqQgvi13_8U/v0

It's a total confusing mess. It's not even talking about the right to bear arms - it's all about gun violence and the methods the states can use to curb it.



Um, no it doesn't. It just says that you can't limit people's rights in a vain attempt to reduce gun violence. In fact, your reasons for wanting to limit people's rights are completely irrelevant! And these are SC Justices!

Clowns in gowns

 

[Anti Globalist]

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure I understand. The only reason I can gather for not needing a 2nd Amendment in the first place, is that you consider it to be a universal inalienable right.

Is that what you believe?

Yes. Or close enough, anyway.

But that is not my reason for thinking that gun rights should not be a federal issue.

If an anti-gun group bought some property, seceded, and formed a community where guns are not allowed (except for military), would you consider that to be some violation of a God given right to bear arms?

No - not so long as membership in such a community is voluntary, and that community does not seek to enforce control over any other property not their own (or not contractually encumbered by them).

In my opinion, if people are going to enter a voluntary pact with another (which the Constitution was originally intended to represent), it's better to be specific about the terms of the relationship than leave it to vague interpretation.

A voluntary pact already existed between the states. The Constitution was originally intended to consolidate more power in the hands of fewer people.

An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.

And for good reason, as it turned out. The anti-federalists were right. Even Alexander Hamilton warned that the Bill of Rights would come to be regarded as a list of permissions granted by the federal government to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions to be imposed upon the federal government by the states. We all know how that went. The mere fact it was sensed that an assurance was needed from the feds that they would not interfere with gun rights (in the form of the 2nd Amendment) was, all by itself, a huge "red flag" (ha-ha!). Note that no one thought it necessary to so amend the Articles of Confederation when they were established.

Now, if you're saying the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the Constitution isn't a voluntary pact and you never signed it, then I guess that makes sense in some cut-off-nose-to-spite-face kind of sense

I am saying that the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the federal level is not the proper scope or venue in which to address such matters (any more than it is the proper scope or venue in which to decree whether people ought to eat their veggies).

That is for state-level constitutions (or even more localized instruments) - and prior to the Constitution, that is where it was dealt with. As far as I know, every state had constitutional sureties for gun rights in some form or another. And if any did not, then that should have been a problem for them to fix for themselves (or not), and not a problem for the feds to "solve" for them (while forcibly imposing that "solution" on them and every other state, as well).

 

[jmdrake]

Well, I'll be dipped.

In all these years I never noticed that subtle but significant difference.

Essentially what we have here is a right considered so important that it "incorporated" itself, long before the concept of incorporation was adjudicated.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

Don't feel bad. A LOT of people miss this. I noticed years ago that there was something off about the ACLU defending the 1st Amendment as applicable to the states but taking a pass on the 2nd. Their excuse is "Other people defend the 2nd." But there are other groups defending the 1st as well. (And lately better than the ACLU.) But I went all the way through law school, passed the bar, and never heard of the Nunn v. Georgia case even though it was referenced in D.C. vs Heller. (Come to think of it. We didn't study the Heller case at all.) I knew about Cruikshank before going to law school. I read about in the book "Library In A Book. Gun Control." I bought that book for $1.00 at a local library sale. The best $1.00 I ever spent! It's not pro or anti gun control. It just goes over the seminal cases and explains them. (As [MENTION=2943]familydog[/MENTION] rightly pointed out, Nunn v Georgia is a state case which probably why it's not in there but considering it's referenced in D.C. v. Heller it should be. And I apologize for being snarky with him. This stuff does take a while to digest.) I need to go ahead and start my blog/vlog to cover issues like this.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't care. (By all means, file it under the "every other form of federal supremacy" option I offered, if that suits you better.)

And while we're at it, the 2nd Amendment (whether "incorporated" or not) can go kick rocks, too.

As with every other right, the right to keep and bear arms should not ever be regarded as contingent upon what the Constitution does or does not say (or, more precisely, whatever the feds choose to say at any given moment about what the Constitution does or does not say, since that is really what it comes down to in actual practice). That's exactly what the anti-federalists tried to warn people about. And now, here we are, thirsting over a pleasing result[1] that should never have been left up to the feds to decree for all the states in the first place. ("All eggs, meet basket. Basket, all eggs ... What's that? You're already acquainted? You've known each other since 1788? Well, I'll be damned ...")



[1] And it is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.

And I don't care that you don't care. How about that? Yeah...I get it. You'd rather the federal government not exist. I'd rather my individual rights not be brutalized by federal or state government. It's kind of like how I feel about corporations. They are bastardized state created entities that got empowered by the 14th amendment. (The amendment to guarantee rights of slaves has been used to guarantee rights of a made up life form. Imagine that?) Since corporations do exist I have zero qualms about using anti-trust law, or any other law created by the same government entity that NEVER should have created modern corporations, to reign them in. And yep. I'm sure anti-trust law has been abused. (Again.....corporations should not even exist as they do). I have yet to see any limitation put on states by the 2nd amendment that in any way bothers me. But that's just me. If you have an example than by all means share it.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes. Or close enough, anyway.

But that is not my reason for thinking that gun rights should not be a federal issue.

No - not so long as membership in such a community is voluntary, and that community does not seek to enforce control over any other property not their own (or not contractually encumbered by them).

So by your logic (which I agree with to some extent), if this voluntary community allows members to own slaves (as did the southern states) and it acts by force to return those slaves to their "owners" (i.e. fugitive slave laws) then it doesn't count as a voluntary community. Which is what existed prior to the civil war including under the Articles of Confederation.

An explicit "guarantee" of gun rights was not even considered necessary at that level until the former was usurped by the latter.

And at what point do you think that usurpation happened? The civil war?

And for good reason, as it turned out. The anti-federalists were right. Even Alexander Hamilton warned that the Bill of Rights would come to be regarded as a list of permissions granted by the federal government to "the people", rather than as a list of restrictions to be imposed upon the federal government by the states. We all know how that went. The mere fact it was sensed that an assurance from the feds that they would not interfere with gun rights (in the form of the 2nd Amendment) was, all by itself, a huge "red flag" (ha-ha). Note that no one thought it necessary to so amend the Articles of Confederation when they were established.

LOL. What turned into a "constitutional convention" was initially just a meeting to amend the Articles of Confederation. But rather than being amended, they were scrapped. (Which is why I'm against a constitutional convention.)

I am saying that the 2nd Amendment can go kick rocks because the federal level is not the proper scope or venue in which to address such matters (any more than it is the proper scope or venue in which to decree whether people ought to eat their veggies).

Japan considered an invasion of the U.S. mainland suicide because the right to own a gun was protected at the federal level as opposed to the state. Otherwise California might have disarmed its populace leaving the door open for a beachhead. That's the point of the militia clause in the 2nd amendment. The national government (federal or confederate) couldn't afford a standing army and many of the founder were wary of that anyway. The Whiskey Rebellion never should have even come up because, rather than sending government troops to fight the Indians on the frontier, George Washington should have left that to the local militia and offered to train them, for a fee, if they felt they needed it.

That is for state-level constitutions (or even more localized instruments) - and prior to the Constitution, that is where it was dealt with. As far as I know, every state had constitutional sureties for gun rights in some form or another. And if any did not, then that should have been a problem for them to fix for themselves (or not), and not a problem for the feds to "solve" for them (while forcibly imposing that "solution" on them and every other state, as well).

Leaving part of the country unsecure because some politicians felt the need to take away gun rights was deemed unacceptable as a whole. I agree with that assessment. So did the Georgia Supreme Court back in the 1800s.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah...I get it. You'd rather the federal government not exist.

My druthers regarding the existence of the feds haven't got anything to do with it. They exist. So long as they continue to exist, their power and purview ought to be limited strictly to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of a union of otherwise sovereign states (for purposes of mutual defense and the like), and nothing more. That does not include dictating what gun rights the citizens of member states are or are not permitted to exercise.

I have yet to see any limitation put on states by the 2nd amendment that in any way bothers me. But that's just me. If you have an example than by all means share it.

It is not the "limitations put on states by the 2nd Amendment" that bother me. As I said previously:

[1] [This ruling] is a pleasing result. I hope it sticks in New York's craw, and I hope the bastards choke on it for as long as it takes them to worm their way around it. But it is the right result achieved the wrong way, amid overwhelmingly many other wrong results achieved the same way.

It is the source of those limitations and the manner of their imposition to which I object. Siccing an 800-pound gorilla on a 500-pound gorilla is all well and good, until that 800-pound gorilla turns his attention to you. And that leads to yet another serious problem with granting purview over gun rights to the federal government: to quote Shakespeare, the 2nd Amendment "is a custom more honored in the breach than the observance". While the feds are busy squashing New York's shenanigans (for the time being, and until judges can be replaced and/or the courts can be packed), federal abrogations of gun rights such as the National Firearms Act (to name just one of many) hum right along, placidly undisturbed by it all. And those are imposed upon everyone, not just New Yorkers. In fact, many states have no laws like those like those SCOTUS just overruled for New York, and there is no reasonable prospect that those states would have implemented any such laws in the foreseeable future - so as far as those states are concerned, this SCOTUS ruling might as well not have happened at all, for all the difference it will make.

 

[jmdrake]

My druthers regarding the existence of the feds haven't got anything to do with it. They exist. So long as they continue to exist, their power and purview ought to be limited strictly to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of a union of otherwise sovereign states (for purposes of mutual defense and the like), and nothing more. That does not include dictating what gun rights the citizens of member states are or are not permitted to exercise.

Okay. Well part of that existence is the second amendment and I'm happy for that even though you are not. And states cannot effectively execute the "purposes of mutual defense" (as YOU put it), without either A) a large standing army or B) an individual right to bear arms. It simply cannot happen. So...which would you rather have? The 80000000 ton gorilla that is the military industrial complex that we all see going around the world brutalizing everyone, or the "800 pound gorilla", as you described it, pissing on poor New York's ability to brutalize it's own citizens? Take your pick.