4 ms·

It's legal insofar that if you want to exercise your rights expect to sit in Jail until your lawyer can take it to the Supreme Court. At which point CA will sli

It's legal insofar that if you want to exercise your rights expect to sit in Jail until your lawyer can take it to the Supreme Court. At which point CA will slightly reword the law to intentionally circumvent the Constitutional rights of its citizens.

mothballed 8mo ago
I have no idea about CA but this is absolutely the case in NYC.[] Dexter Taylor is sitting in jail for a decade for making personal use firearms without a license. No other alleged criminal activity and they never even left his house. During trial, the judge said "the second amendment isn't allowed in my courtroom."* His lawyer knows they are going to lose all the appeals in New York but basically he has to sit in jail for 3-4 years through the state court system until it can hit federal courts where there is a good chance his case will eventually get overturned. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Taylor * Response to below (my comments are throttled): The argument/reference in his defense, not actual guns.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- daveguy 8mo ago
  Of course the second amendment isn't allowed in his courtroom. It's literally not allowed in any courtroom in the country. It's a courtroom. The only people permitted to have guns in a courtroom in the US are the bailiffs and the judge. Was that a reading comprehension issue, or are you just trying to rile people up? Sports Arenas and Jails are two other places you might be surprised to learn don't allow the second amendment.
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    The full quote is. >Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York. This is not about guns in the courtroom. This is a claim that the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not apply to the state of New York.
    - throwway120385 8mo ago
      No, what the judge is saying is that just arguing that you're allowed to do whatever "gun things" you want because of the 2nd amendment in a state district court is specious. You can argue the merits of the specific case based on the precedent in that and other courts that have jurisdiction but simply standing up and arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number doesn't carry water. To make that argument you'd first have to take the F out of ATF and roll back a lot of case law that exists at the federal level that does give states the right to enact some controls. It's a gross oversimplification of what the judge was trying to say to imply that they don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution.
      - charcircuit 8mo ago
        Such a thing could have been phrased better by the judge in such a scenario. I personally feel the statement that was made was unprofessional at best.
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        This has nothing to do with the federal laws that are enforced by ATF ... what he did was totally legally federally. And he didn't sell them, you pulled that out of your ass. It doesn't appear you have any familiarity with the case yet you purport to understand what the judge was saying by completely mischaracterizing the case with outright falsehoods. But I suppose if you just tell straight up lies confidently enough, someone will believe you!
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
        > arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number I'm not familiar with the details of the case but, reading the thread, it seems this didn't occur if the guns "never even left his house".
    - daveguy 8mo ago
      Weird. I have seen a bunch of people repeating that quote, but not a single source for the full court transcript. Court transcript are public record, available for request by anyone. So it's real strange no one seems to have a source reference, no? Did you read the transcript? Happen to have a reference?
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- stronglikedan 8mo ago
  NYC, California... they're the same picture
- matheusmoreira 8mo ago
  Respect. "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law out of all other freedom struggles."

mothballed 8mo ago

I have no idea about CA but this is absolutely the case in NYC.[] Dexter Taylor is sitting in jail for a decade for making personal use firearms without a license. No other alleged criminal activity and they never even left his house. During trial, the judge said "the second amendment isn't allowed in my courtroom."* His lawyer knows they are going to lose all the appeals in New York but basically he has to sit in jail for 3-4 years through the state court system until it can hit federal courts where there is a good chance his case will eventually get overturned. [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dexter_Taylor * Response to below (my comments are throttled): The argument/reference in his defense, not actual guns.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
daveguy 8mo ago
Of course the second amendment isn't allowed in his courtroom. It's literally not allowed in any courtroom in the country. It's a courtroom. The only people permitted to have guns in a courtroom in the US are the bailiffs and the judge. Was that a reading comprehension issue, or are you just trying to rile people up? Sports Arenas and Jails are two other places you might be surprised to learn don't allow the second amendment.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  The full quote is. >Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York. This is not about guns in the courtroom. This is a claim that the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not apply to the state of New York.
  - throwway120385 8mo ago
    No, what the judge is saying is that just arguing that you're allowed to do whatever "gun things" you want because of the 2nd amendment in a state district court is specious. You can argue the merits of the specific case based on the precedent in that and other courts that have jurisdiction but simply standing up and arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number doesn't carry water. To make that argument you'd first have to take the F out of ATF and roll back a lot of case law that exists at the federal level that does give states the right to enact some controls. It's a gross oversimplification of what the judge was trying to say to imply that they don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution.
    - charcircuit 8mo ago
      Such a thing could have been phrased better by the judge in such a scenario. I personally feel the statement that was made was unprofessional at best.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      This has nothing to do with the federal laws that are enforced by ATF ... what he did was totally legally federally. And he didn't sell them, you pulled that out of your ass. It doesn't appear you have any familiarity with the case yet you purport to understand what the judge was saying by completely mischaracterizing the case with outright falsehoods. But I suppose if you just tell straight up lies confidently enough, someone will believe you!
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8mo ago
      > arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number I'm not familiar with the details of the case but, reading the thread, it seems this didn't occur if the guns "never even left his house".
  - daveguy 8mo ago
    Weird. I have seen a bunch of people repeating that quote, but not a single source for the full court transcript. Court transcript are public record, available for request by anyone. So it's real strange no one seems to have a source reference, no? Did you read the transcript? Happen to have a reference?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
stronglikedan 8mo ago
NYC, California... they're the same picture
matheusmoreira 8mo ago
Respect. "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law out of all other freedom struggles."