I know this is a controversial opinion but it would be nice if we stopped letting paranoid insane people be judges.
You can have your views on firearms that differ from mine but he wrote a 168 page opinion. That’s an insane person.
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
6215 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Too late...way too late for that.
Give it 6 months before someone is arguing before the Supreme Court that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an absolute statement and any gun control legislation is unconstitutional.
And the Supreme Court will buy it.
They've already ruled on that... repeatedly... but of course precedent means fuck all to this court anymore...
D.C. Vs. Heller - 2008
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
One step past that is "Congress shall pass no law."
I'm not positive they won't go that far either.
They wont make it a total free for all, they'll still want their victims as defenseless as possible. I would not be surprised if gun stores start asking for proof of Party affiliation before any purchase. Courts will say "private business nothing we can do lmao."
So Illinoisians can purchase their own nazi-repellant machines now
As someone who took the 2A seriously after the 2016 election, and takes it even more seriously now considering the type of government we’re about to force onto ourselves… I definitely recommend taking the 2A more seriously for yourself and learn how to become effective.
The only way to truly protect your way of life, especially when government turns against you, is to learn how to defend yourself and your local community.
Does that mean I can buy one right now?
Not right now, but probably in a month:
"but will hold off on prohibiting the state from enforcing it for one month to allow for a likely appeal."
To fully understand this, you have to have been following the Supreme Court gun rulings since 2008. That's when it started changing.
2008 - D.C. vs. Heller - Handgun ban
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia."
How this relates to assault weapons, from the ruling:
"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
"The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."
2010 - McDonald v. City of Chicago - Handgun ban
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
Because D.C. is a special district, and not a state, the court ruled 2 years later that, yes, they mean states as well.
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense."
2016 - Caetano v. Massachusetts
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
This is my favorite of the bunch. Woman buys a stun gun to protect against an abusive ex. MA rules that stun guns didn't exist back in the day, so the 2nd amendment doesn't apply.
"The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as "bearable arms," even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."
2022 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
This is the one that's causing lower courts to re-consider all their rulings.
On the face of it, it up-ended how New York State assigns concealed carry permits. In order to get a permit, you had to show "special cause" and statements like "I don't feel safe" or "I want to defend myself" weren't deemed special enough.
So to start with:
"the "constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need."
BUT - THE COURT DIDN'T END THERE.
They added this little bon mot for other courts:
"To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599)."
So now, all other courts are reviewing the laws with those two bullet points in mind... aaand here we are...
Define assault weapon. Cos that sure as shit aint what the a in ar15 stands for.