10 ms·

> What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah. What nonsense. This is not about sta

> What you seem to complain about is that voters in California cannot impose their social view on the inhabitants of Utah. What nonsense. This is not about state's rights. Just yesterday the Court decided that no, California doesn't have the right to restrict guns. That's the inhabitants of Utah imposing their social view on the acceptability of guns on the residents of California. It's about states rights when it comes to things you don't support, like abortion, and it's about the constitution and the rights it gives everyone, when it comes to things that you support, like the right for every nutjob to kill children with AR-15s. There is no logical reasoning behind these decisions aside from a vindictive, right-wing court, imposing its social will onto the entire country.

cm2187 4y ago
Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus.
- inlined 4y ago
  The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
    - inlined 4y ago
      Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
      - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
        Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
        nullfield 4y ago
        Militia: still is, mostly - people live a little longer now. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
    - BeefWellington 4y ago
      I've had this question for a while but why can I not own a functional tank or MLRS system and just drive them around wherever I want? Why are explosives regulated? Nothing in the constitution seems to suggest "Arms" must mean "guns and only guns", so where else is the line drawn?
      - 4y ago
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. IIRC, you need private gun ownership to have a militia (as the founders understood them). I believe the idea was regular citizens would organize when needed and bring their own guns.
    - p_l 4y ago
      One of possible interpretations, which AFAIK was even on the books in some state for a time, was that second amendment meant compulsory obligation for each voter to buy, out of their own money, a military rifle and stand for militia training periodically - essentially, mandatory militia service. Lots of ways to wring hands about a very badly written amendment.
  - lkjdsklf 4y ago
    Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed. You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can’t be allowed. I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
      - lkjdsklf 4y ago
        An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed to overturn the supreme court. That's how it works. If the court decides that a previous court was wrong, then that's fine. That's how the system is designed. tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
        hirako2000 4y ago
        It puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical. Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite. I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
        4y ago
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      > All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year Or how about, since we banded together in order to create a more perfect union, and so that I, as a citizen, can focus my time on pursuing happiness, rather than mustering every six months, we agree, through our democratically elected representatives, to just pay some money into a kitty and out of that fund a professional police force, fire department, and a state national guard. That way we get sufficient people trained in the use of arms to secure our liberty, and we don't have to act like we're a bunch of 18th century farmers any more.
      - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
        No, the Federal government having a standing army is what leads to us invading other countries. This is a terrible, terrible thing. It is far harder to forward deploy individuals that are only required to defend their homeland. Also, we've seen all the institutions you mention collapse in the face of disaster. It would be far better for the citizens to be responsible for themselves in a collation with larger bodies than be dependent upon those larger organizations. For example, in Florida it makes sense to have the community trained on preparation and local response. People need to know what to materials to gather and what is already stockpiled locally. In the face of a hurricane, the community guard, i.e. the people, would be responsible for triaging the situation until reinforcements arrive. As it stands, the people huddle together en-mass hoping that the Federal government, or even the State will come to their rescue.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I love these arguments that still want to pretend that Well Regulated means lots of regulations instead of the actual "Well trained and in good working order". And Milita which is really just any able bodied adult that can fight for defense of self or state... But ignores Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010 which both, for a long time, have ruled that this word argument is complete nonsense. That regardless of what you want to believe, 2A is an individual right. Heller v DC - It's an individual right to own a firearm. You can't ban handguns or anything else just because you say so. McDonald v Chicago - You can't just not issue permits to carry. 2A includes the right to carry outside the home. NYPRA v Bruen - You can't say you MIGHT issue a permit, you will if they meet the legal requirements established by your state. Please stop with the intellectually void argument that 2A is how you see it because you think the first few words invalidate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It's weak, and more importantly, it's over. It has been nail in the coffin settled for 12 years now.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. The court's analysis that 'keep and bear arms' implies an individual right to carry a handgun (or a weapon 'in common use') for self defense purposes is exactly the kind of drawing of 'legislative-style' boundaries that the court railed against in today's ruling overturning Roe and Casey.
      - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        >And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. Can you point to a scotus case that has clarified or determined the text of the abortion amendment?
        jameshart 4y ago
        ROE V WADE
        4y ago
- guelo 4y ago
  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" means something, doesn't it? "Self defense" is nowhere in the constitution either but that didn't stop this court's radical right wing from establishing it as some kind of new right.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- larkost 4y ago
  The provision (Second Amendment) explicitly says "well regulated", and talks about gun rights in connection with being for militias. This is how that right was read until 2008. This is all about conservatives on the Supreme Court picking and choosing what they want the Constitution to say.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    tbf, that's only how it had been read from 1934 to 2008, and only by some -- it was not read that way prior to 1934, and 1934's decision in US v Miller likely wouldn't have arrived at that reading but for an extremely peculiar set of circumstances, including the fact that the defendant was dead, and the attorney didn't show up to correct false testimony from the government, which was extremely wrong in its assertion that the firearm used had no connection to military service
    - nullfield 4y ago
      We know this, but arguing it to people who actively want to not understand is such a Sisyphean task...
  - ufmace 4y ago
    If you read the original papers about this, it's clear that "well regulated" refers to "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning." as defined in https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated, not "subject to arbitrary Government control". In a plain reading, it makes sense in context for this to mean "well trained". It would be rather odd for it to both say, in a supporting clause, that it's subject to arbitrary Government control, and also in the main clause that the right "shall not be infringed".
    - VVayneTracker 4y ago
      The difference is that one inures to state governments rather than the federal government. The concern at the time was that the federal government would take guns away from people in order to neuter the States' power to defend itself. The States themselves free to do what they wanted to regulate their citizens and militias.
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  > Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus. The constitution is short and vague on many things. People read between the lines. That's just as true of abortion as it if of gun rights. If you read the constitutions as written, there is no right for individuals to have guns. It's very clear, this is for organized militias. If you read the constitution as written most of what the federal government does today isn't allowed, it's all mostly approved by an incredibly wide reading of the commerce clause. The Court is picking and choosing rights. They force Maine to give priority to their religion, they force California/NY/MA to give priority to their gun rights, they force everyone to abandon reproductive rights. That's a choice in how to interpret a very vague document.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    No, its very clear that the right to gun ownership is an individual right: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
    - light_hue_1 4y ago
      You are picking and choosing an out of context citation and twisting what the 2nd amendment means. "Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense." So no. Your quote is not what the 2nd amendment means at all! It is a modern twist reinterpreting it.
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
- CptJupiterNorth 4y ago
  There are already plenty of types of guns that you cannot buy (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.), and that seems to be fine and legal. We're just talking about adding more to that list.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    Or we could subtract from the list as well.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >Or we could subtract from the list as well. To what end? That's not a rhetorical question. How far do you want to go? P90s? RPGs? Stinger missiles? What would the societal benefit be there?
      - Clubber 4y ago
        >To what end? To get some long lost rights back. >How far do you want to go? P90s? RPGs? Stinger missiles? Silencers/supressors are currently banned in the US (requires a tax stamp and long waiting period) but legal in other highly restrictive countries like England/UK. They're basically mufflers for guns and not like in the movies. Short barreled rifles would be nice too; we have those now but it's a "technicality," where anyone who owns them for recreational shooting can, on a whim of a bureaucrat, become a felon sentenced to decades of prison. That's not how a free society based on laws should work. Pot falls under the same category. It's still not legal at the federal level and if the DEA decides it wants to start raiding people's homes looking for pot, it certainly can, and people can be prosecuted for it. >What would the societal benefit be there? We're a society of individuals, not a society of Borg. Freedoms of the individual are the greatest benefit a society can have.
        nobody9999 4y ago
        >To get some long lost rights back. Which specific rights? Don't wax on the pseudo-libertarian bullshit, as you're communicating with an actual libertarian. Please, do tell.
guerrilla 4y ago
> California New York* I believe.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Well, really, any state that has a similar law on the books. But yesterday's ruling was specifically about a NY law. CA and many other states will also be impacted.
  - inlined 4y ago
    SB-8 helped create a framework for bypassing constitutional “rights” and I think it’s time that California, with its direct democracy, bans guns altogether.
    - lkjdsklf 4y ago
      The supreme court just said abortion is not constitutionally protected so SB-8 isn't bypassing constitutional rights. You might disagree with the court, but that doesn't matter since any law similar to SB-8 related to guns would be handled by that court. That said, I think CA/NY and others should absolutely do it. They should be super aggressive and start using the tactic created in SB-8 on all kinds of issues if for no other reason than the ridiculousness of relying on civilian enforcement of laws.
      - inlined 4y ago
        If guns are banned or SB-8 style tactics are banned we win either way.
        Clubber 4y ago
        >If guns are banned You know they won't just magically disappear right? They will still exist en masse. Guns are mostly banned in Mexico, but the cartels use them to control the government. Careful what you wish for.
        4y ago
bruceb 4y ago
These are two different decisions. As has been pointed out by others the NY law was arbitrary. The local law man decided if you were worthy of getting a concealed permit. This would be like if the local law man decided if area women were worthy to be allowed an abortion. The US would be better with fewer guns, but this was a badly written law.

cm2187 4y ago

Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus.

inlined 4y ago
The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. The NYC ruling was pure judicial activism
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
  - inlined 4y ago
    Modern judicial activism which clearly goes to the heart of the matter: the conservative bloc in the SCOTUS doesn’t care about even the text of the constitution
    - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
      Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights. Edit: to pull context from another comment here. "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
      - nullfield 4y ago
        Militia: still is, mostly - people live a little longer now. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
  - BeefWellington 4y ago
    I've had this question for a while but why can I not own a functional tank or MLRS system and just drive them around wherever I want? Why are explosives regulated? Nothing in the constitution seems to suggest "Arms" must mean "guns and only guns", so where else is the line drawn?
    - 4y ago
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia. IIRC, you need private gun ownership to have a militia (as the founders understood them). I believe the idea was regular citizens would organize when needed and bring their own guns.
  - p_l 4y ago
    One of possible interpretations, which AFAIK was even on the books in some state for a time, was that second amendment meant compulsory obligation for each voter to buy, out of their own money, a military rifle and stand for militia training periodically - essentially, mandatory militia service. Lots of ways to wring hands about a very badly written amendment.
- lkjdsklf 4y ago
  Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed. You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can’t be allowed. I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
    - lkjdsklf 4y ago
      An extension of my first point is that the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't. My point was that only the supreme court can be allowed to overturn the supreme court. That's how it works. If the court decides that a previous court was wrong, then that's fine. That's how the system is designed. tl;dr we have a really dogshit system that essentially puts 9 people in charge of everything
      - hirako2000 4y ago
        It puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical. Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite. I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
        4y ago
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm https://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm "The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes." This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    > All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year Or how about, since we banded together in order to create a more perfect union, and so that I, as a citizen, can focus my time on pursuing happiness, rather than mustering every six months, we agree, through our democratically elected representatives, to just pay some money into a kitty and out of that fund a professional police force, fire department, and a state national guard. That way we get sufficient people trained in the use of arms to secure our liberty, and we don't have to act like we're a bunch of 18th century farmers any more.
    - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
      No, the Federal government having a standing army is what leads to us invading other countries. This is a terrible, terrible thing. It is far harder to forward deploy individuals that are only required to defend their homeland. Also, we've seen all the institutions you mention collapse in the face of disaster. It would be far better for the citizens to be responsible for themselves in a collation with larger bodies than be dependent upon those larger organizations. For example, in Florida it makes sense to have the community trained on preparation and local response. People need to know what to materials to gather and what is already stockpiled locally. In the face of a hurricane, the community guard, i.e. the people, would be responsible for triaging the situation until reinforcements arrive. As it stands, the people huddle together en-mass hoping that the Federal government, or even the State will come to their rescue.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I love these arguments that still want to pretend that Well Regulated means lots of regulations instead of the actual "Well trained and in good working order". And Milita which is really just any able bodied adult that can fight for defense of self or state... But ignores Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010 which both, for a long time, have ruled that this word argument is complete nonsense. That regardless of what you want to believe, 2A is an individual right. Heller v DC - It's an individual right to own a firearm. You can't ban handguns or anything else just because you say so. McDonald v Chicago - You can't just not issue permits to carry. 2A includes the right to carry outside the home. NYPRA v Bruen - You can't say you MIGHT issue a permit, you will if they meet the legal requirements established by your state. Please stop with the intellectually void argument that 2A is how you see it because you think the first few words invalidate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It's weak, and more importantly, it's over. It has been nail in the coffin settled for 12 years now.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. The court's analysis that 'keep and bear arms' implies an individual right to carry a handgun (or a weapon 'in common use') for self defense purposes is exactly the kind of drawing of 'legislative-style' boundaries that the court railed against in today's ruling overturning Roe and Casey.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      >And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973. Can you point to a scotus case that has clarified or determined the text of the abortion amendment?
      - jameshart 4y ago
        ROE V WADE
        4y ago
guelo 4y ago
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons" means something, doesn't it? "Self defense" is nowhere in the constitution either but that didn't stop this court's radical right wing from establishing it as some kind of new right.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
larkost 4y ago
The provision (Second Amendment) explicitly says "well regulated", and talks about gun rights in connection with being for militias. This is how that right was read until 2008. This is all about conservatives on the Supreme Court picking and choosing what they want the Constitution to say.
- bmelton 4y ago
  tbf, that's only how it had been read from 1934 to 2008, and only by some -- it was not read that way prior to 1934, and 1934's decision in US v Miller likely wouldn't have arrived at that reading but for an extremely peculiar set of circumstances, including the fact that the defendant was dead, and the attorney didn't show up to correct false testimony from the government, which was extremely wrong in its assertion that the firearm used had no connection to military service
  - nullfield 4y ago
    We know this, but arguing it to people who actively want to not understand is such a Sisyphean task...
- ufmace 4y ago
  If you read the original papers about this, it's clear that "well regulated" refers to "To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning." as defined in https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated https://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated, not "subject to arbitrary Government control". In a plain reading, it makes sense in context for this to mean "well trained". It would be rather odd for it to both say, in a supporting clause, that it's subject to arbitrary Government control, and also in the main clause that the right "shall not be infringed".
  - VVayneTracker 4y ago
    The difference is that one inures to state governments rather than the federal government. The concern at the time was that the federal government would take guns away from people in order to neuter the States' power to defend itself. The States themselves free to do what they wanted to regulate their citizens and militias.
light_hue_1 4y ago
> Because there is an explicit provision on guns in the constitution. No mention of or allusion to abortion in the constitution. If the US wants to protect abortion through the constitution, they are free to do so. The US constitution has been amended many times. But that takes an even broader consensus. The constitution is short and vague on many things. People read between the lines. That's just as true of abortion as it if of gun rights. If you read the constitutions as written, there is no right for individuals to have guns. It's very clear, this is for organized militias. If you read the constitution as written most of what the federal government does today isn't allowed, it's all mostly approved by an incredibly wide reading of the commerce clause. The Court is picking and choosing rights. They force Maine to give priority to their religion, they force California/NY/MA to give priority to their gun rights, they force everyone to abandon reproductive rights. That's a choice in how to interpret a very vague document.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  No, its very clear that the right to gun ownership is an individual right: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
  - light_hue_1 4y ago
    You are picking and choosing an out of context citation and twisting what the 2nd amendment means. "Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense." So no. Your quote is not what the 2nd amendment means at all! It is a modern twist reinterpreting it.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
CptJupiterNorth 4y ago
There are already plenty of types of guns that you cannot buy (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.), and that seems to be fine and legal. We're just talking about adding more to that list.
- Clubber 4y ago
  Or we could subtract from the list as well.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >Or we could subtract from the list as well. To what end? That's not a rhetorical question. How far do you want to go? P90s? RPGs? Stinger missiles? What would the societal benefit be there?
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >To what end? To get some long lost rights back. >How far do you want to go? P90s? RPGs? Stinger missiles? Silencers/supressors are currently banned in the US (requires a tax stamp and long waiting period) but legal in other highly restrictive countries like England/UK. They're basically mufflers for guns and not like in the movies. Short barreled rifles would be nice too; we have those now but it's a "technicality," where anyone who owns them for recreational shooting can, on a whim of a bureaucrat, become a felon sentenced to decades of prison. That's not how a free society based on laws should work. Pot falls under the same category. It's still not legal at the federal level and if the DEA decides it wants to start raiding people's homes looking for pot, it certainly can, and people can be prosecuted for it. >What would the societal benefit be there? We're a society of individuals, not a society of Borg. Freedoms of the individual are the greatest benefit a society can have.
      - nobody9999 4y ago
        >To get some long lost rights back. Which specific rights? Don't wax on the pseudo-libertarian bullshit, as you're communicating with an actual libertarian. Please, do tell.

guerrilla 4y ago

> California New York* I believe.

brewdad 4y ago
Well, really, any state that has a similar law on the books. But yesterday's ruling was specifically about a NY law. CA and many other states will also be impacted.
- inlined 4y ago
  SB-8 helped create a framework for bypassing constitutional “rights” and I think it’s time that California, with its direct democracy, bans guns altogether.
  - lkjdsklf 4y ago
    The supreme court just said abortion is not constitutionally protected so SB-8 isn't bypassing constitutional rights. You might disagree with the court, but that doesn't matter since any law similar to SB-8 related to guns would be handled by that court. That said, I think CA/NY and others should absolutely do it. They should be super aggressive and start using the tactic created in SB-8 on all kinds of issues if for no other reason than the ridiculousness of relying on civilian enforcement of laws.
    - inlined 4y ago
      If guns are banned or SB-8 style tactics are banned we win either way.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        >If guns are banned You know they won't just magically disappear right? They will still exist en masse. Guns are mostly banned in Mexico, but the cartels use them to control the government. Careful what you wish for.
      - 4y ago

bruceb 4y ago

These are two different decisions. As has been pointed out by others the NY law was arbitrary. The local law man decided if you were worthy of getting a concealed permit. This would be like if the local law man decided if area women were worthy to be allowed an abortion. The US would be better with fewer guns, but this was a badly written law.