In the New York ruling known as Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court justices established a new test for Second Amendment cases, focused on whether there’s a historic precedent for the regulation in contention.
So Friday, the opposing attorneys spent much of the hearing trying to show why history dating back to the colonial era was on their side — or why it shouldn’t necessarily carry the weight Bruen afforded it. [Deputy Solicitor General Angela] Cai pointed to other constitutionally protected civil rights, like voting, that historically were only granted to white men.
The Bruen decision also dismissed New York officials’ attempt to ban guns in crowded places, saying areas like Manhattan essentially are one sprawling, crowded place. [Attorney Daniel] Schmutter applied that logic to some of New Jersey’s sensitive place prohibitions.
“All airports really are, are crowded places,” he said.
Attorney Edward Kologi represents Senate President Nicholas Scutari and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin. He sent grumbles through the courtroom, where gun rights advocates filled the spectator benches, just minutes after he began talking.
“Guns only have two functions – to kill or to seriously injure,” Kologi said.
That prompted a testy retort from the judge.
“You forgot the right to self-defense,” Bumb said.
She added: “You’re saying when there’s more guns, there’s more violence. That’s the analysis you want to engage in. But that’s not the record before me. We’re talking about law-abiding citizens who obtain permits. You’re asking this court to presume that those who have valid carry permits will somehow engage in violence, and that is a step taken too far.”
— Dana Difilippo in In Challenge to N.J.’s New Gun Law, Hearing Brings More Debate — But No Decision
Shakespeare comes to mind.
A permit to carry is the state taking a Right from You and Selling it Back to You.
Gun Control’s MO is to concoct crap and more crap and people who should not fall for any of it fall for it. I.E. Instead of defining Gun Control in any shape, matter or form by its roots in racism and genocide so called defenders of the 2A in a court put a smiley face on permits and in doing so donate to Gun Control.
If so called defenders of the 2A want to protect and defend the 2A they need to deal with sick, sneaky people who are hell bent on keeping the agenda of racists and nazis alive…Abolish the Gun Control Beast like its sidekicks slavery, lynching, etc.
just can’t help yourself.
so very bard related.
I agree DebbieW.
Awhile back I showed my sonm a picture of a group of black men all tooled up with AR’s and sht. He sent back his reply. ” Well it wont belong before they ban AR’s ” and sure enough what’s our illustrious and most benevolent president is trying to do? Ban AR’s along with every other gunm he considers a ‘Weapon of War’.
I don’t know anything about Judge Bumb, beyond what is written on this page. But, I think I like her. “We’re talking about law-abiding citizens who obtain permits. You’re asking this court to presume that those who have valid carry permits will somehow engage in violence, and that is a step taken too far.”
Hooray for judges who manage to retain a lick of sense in their careers!
in NJ no less and there’s not much less than nj
The Judge had it correct except for the need to apply for a “Government May-I-Slip.”
That is indeed the argument long presented in the ban states, including NY, NJ, and California. Basically they argue that CCWs should be severely restricted to persons having “special cause” because “more guns equals more gun crime..” As this judge so cogently observed, these states presume that people legally carrying firearms will more likely engage in criminal misuse of those firearms, notwithstanding study after study that CCW carriers are among the most law abiding citizens out there, with a crime rate that is a fraction of that for police officers. Or. to put it even more succinctly, people who carry guns are guilty until proven innocent.
in a lot of places your just a felony looking for an opportunity to to get busted
Thanks for sharing. The retired USMC colonel who lied under oath to Congress about the AR-15 should be dealt with severely. But we know he won’t.
So the opposing attorney is allowed to lie in court, or are they just dumb? I think it’s the former not the later in this case.
CaptainR, Most likely a dose fo both.
Do not forget the healing power of “and”. That is NOT and ‘either/or’ question.
Seeing a bit of it in 2nd circuit oral arguments today
It’s not lying per se, but distorting, exaggerating, or omitting the truth as they see it.
It’s why lawyers are seen as the larval stage of politicians. They get to practice and hone their craft in the small scale first.
Good Morning SC,
“It’s why lawyers are seen as the larval stage of politicians.”
I am unashamedly stealing that expression!
“It’s why lawyers are seen as the larval stage of politicians.”
“I am unashamedly stealing that expression!”
Sorry, no; I got there first.
Everyone knows murderers like to have their permit before engaging in murder.
Can anyone get one of those?
Are there varying degrees available?
Asking for a friend
Judge Bumb nailed it and wasn’t going to have that garbage….
“You’re saying when there’s more guns, there’s more violence.” – that’s what the state was arguing – its the foundational anti-gun false logic ’emotional’ argument of ‘correlation = causation’ which is an argument only ignorant weak-minded people succumb to.
“. . . which is an argument only ignorant weak-minded people succumb to.”
And you are addressing the behavior of Leftist/fascist anti-gun zealots.
In logic, that is known as a ‘tautology’.
The proper use of the word “KILL” should be represented, as well. Such as: to put Food on the table. To prevent dangerous animals/species (humans included) from killing your pet, livestock, or family members. Our legal/justice system is sooooo skewed toward the protection and rights of those carrying out illegal and criminal acts; is there any reason to question why people are purchasing firearms in record numbers? And by the way, people are taking training classes of their own Free Will in record numbers too. Once again: Put Firearm EDUCATION into our Public SCHOOL system. EDUCATE the children from early on, of the DANGERS and RESPONSIBILITIES REQUIRED to own, use, and operate. This would be a WAAAAAY greater benefit, than any of the ridiculous INFRINGING legislation the numbskulls continue to force upon OUR RIGHT.
Government doesn’t need common sense muddling up the what they know to be right.
“In tyranny, my sword belongs not in a scabbard.”
― Mecha Constantineonstantine
Which is why virtually every “English” translation of the Old Testament gets the 6th commandment wrong. The proper translation of the Hebrew word used (which, historially, was then translated into Aramaic, then translated into Greek, then translated into Latin, then translated into English) would render: “Thou shalt not murder.”
A better rendering would be: “Don’t kill except for food or self-defense, and never kill with ill intent.”
Jesus was not a pacifist (c.f., moneylenders in the Temple, “sell your cloak and buy a sword”). Neither the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, nor the teachings of Jesus prohibit self-defense, defense of others, hunting for food, or even (and this is a crucial bit of context) animal sacrifice. It is the lack of necessity, and/or evil intent, that makes a killing a “murder”.
Soe of these attorneys don’t have a brain in their head or a hair on their posterior.
Walter E. Beverly III,
What we are seeing from attorneys who advocate for civilian disarmament is NOT a failure of intelligence. Rather, what we are seeing is corruption, plain and simple.
Attorneys who argue in favor of civilian disarmament are intentionally and knowingly arguing for a disarmed populace–because they stand to gain handsomely for doing so.
And what do said attorney stand to gain?
— piles of cash for their direct services
— additional cash rewards from the Ruling Class for advancing the Ruling Class agenda
— favors plus special privileges and immunities for supporting the Ruling Class
— the sick “pleasure” of sowing chaos and suffering
To be blunt: stop ascribing the actions of the Ruling Class to ignorance or misguided objectives. Their objectives are crystal clear to them and their actions to achieve their objectives are cold, calculated, and intentional. They could not care less what happens to the populace in the pursuit of their objectives.
Sometimes people from congress or the executive branch sound very dumb and uninformed when discussing policy. That’s because the only policy they’re really interested in is securing their power. Everything else is lip service just to get through an interview. That’s why they’re always focusing on fake issues, like diversity, racist roads, environmental justice, climate crisis, etc. It’s easy. No one questions them about it for fear of being labeled a racist, denier, etc. You’re supposed to just nod and agree.
Has there ever been a dumber duo than Puppet-Harris? When you think about it, the people who are really pulling the strings don’t want a puppet who’s too intelligent because they might become a threat. What they really want is a soulless vessel, like the figureheads currently occupying the White House. The same can be said for many DA’s, who are bought and paid for.
It’s my concern, my concern is, it’s my concern, America will get so many gunms the weight will capsize the island and Alaska will float off to the coast of Australia
In other more concise and accurate words, in referring to the gun-grabber paid attorneys, “its ALL about the Benjamins. ”
Does anyone REALLT believe tht former Monsanto whitewash expert really wants America disarmed? Of COURSE not. but by marching to that tne she gets PILES of money. She has sold what passes for her soul to the devil of uttter subjugation of the masses.
It’s why the elites welcome cl!mate change. Because they know those unwashed pours are going to carry the financial and s0cial costs.
“former Monsanto whitewash expert”
Yes, Clarence Thomas‘s behavior is deplorable, every veteran poisoned by Agent Orange should call for his impeachment.
“During his 30 years on the nation’s highest bench, Thomas has faced calls to stay out of Monsanto cases but has routinely helped issue rulings in favor of the company and other chemical industry litigants, Stern found in his paper.
He cited one document in a polychlorinated biphenyls contamination case in which a plaintiffs’ lawyer said a search for records related to Thomas’ role at Monsanto might be “useful to induce settlement and/or head off appeal from final judgment.”
Monsanto manufactured the chemicals, known as PCBs, from 1935 until they were banned in the United States in 1979. While he was at Monsanto, Thomas was responsible for negotiating contracts for PCB disposal, Stern wrote.“
If not for morons going to court lawyers would be digging ditches (or some other useful trade).
“… attorneys … [tried] to show why history dating back to the colonial era was on their side — or why it shouldn’t necessarily carry the weight Bruen afforded it. [Deputy Solicitor General Angela] Cai pointed to other constitutionally protected civil rights, like voting, that historically were only granted to white men.”
Newsflash: our nation enacted a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to enable women to vote. In other words our nation enacted a Constitutional amendment to right a Constitutional wrong–which is exactly the honorable and proper way to fix a claimed Constitutional defect.
The Deputy Solicitor’s implication is that we should correct historical wrongs which is a noble pursuit.
Where the Deputy Solicitor FAILS in spectacular fashion is where she claims (for all intents and purposes) that:
1) Our inalienable right to life in our U.S. Constitution (and its corollary right to effective self-defense which IS our right to keep and bear arms) is wrong for society. Thus, our U.S. Constitution is “defective” in that regard.
2) Our United States Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land with respect to firearm laws and we can correct the above Constitutional “defect” with local laws rather than amending the Constitution.
This is right on. The people who were CITIZENS of the time had those rights as stated in the constitution, and some were held in an inferior status. We altered that significantly in the post civil war world by the equal protection clause and the 19th amendment.
It’s not that the right to keep and bear arms changed, it’s that those rights were expanded to more people who should have had them in the first place. It’s also worth noting those rights were expanded via the constitutional amendment process. That says a lot about the idea that maybe such a process should be used if one desires to regulate their rights in contrary to the constitution.
also note, that amendment expanded rights for the citizenry, not restricted them further.
good point as well
Good point, but . . . the BoR codifies what I would refer to as “inherent rights”, or basic human rights, and tells THE GOVERNMENT to keep their damn hands off. My right to speak exists because I am human. My right to self-defense (and the right to access to means in support of self-defense) exists because I am human.
I would argue that ANY amendment to the Constitution to limit basic human rights is void. Just like the Eighteenth Amendment was not just stupid, counter-productive, and wrong, it was fundamentally invalid – as proven by the widespread ignoring of it. Oh, and it served to create the rise of organized crime.
Good going, moral busybodies!!!
Now, take that same logic and apply it to “the War on Drugs”. Apparently, certain types of people never learn. Literally EVERY lesson from Prohibition has been ignored in the entire “War on Drugs” fiasco – and all the mistakes are being repeated on a GRAND scale.
“our nation enacted a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to enable women to vote. ”
Yes, grandpa voted for this. Likely thought he would get a little (or that she might just STFU). Grandpa also pass all manner of Prog BS amendments that were pushed by the Woodrow Wilson coven. How did any of them work out to the good?
It’s a never ending Power Play.
Tyrants will continually invoke tyranny at every opportunity, as long as they are allowed to Rule or even exist.
Since you are not revealing the Judge’s full name in your article, I looked her up.
I can’t find any photos that would reveal if Judge Bumb has a nice Bumb.
Well, her ruling alone is enough to prove she has a nice brain.
More of us should follow her example, and deride, mock, and call out idiocy wherever it manifests. Like every time MinorLiar posts.
Interesting. To acquire a brain in NJ they had to import one from the Midwest.
“Guns only have two functions – to kill or to seriously injure,” Kologi said.
So that is why the police need them on every officer’s hip?
A long time ago, an anti-gunner described Mas Ayoob’s classes as teaching “how to kill criminals and get away with it”. The implication, of course, is that harming a criminal in self defense is wrong. I’m pleased the judge corrected the defendants’ attorney when he conflated self defense with criminal acts.
Maybe the judge doesn’t understand Bruen, either.
IIRC, Thomas wrote that “sensitive” places cannot be declared to be anywhere, and everywhere, people gather together.
Regards, the argument that in the colonial era only white men could vote, the judge should have replied that her decision rests on the matter before the court, not potential outcomes resulting from her decision.
The presumption of the attorney that all gun owners are prone to violence reminds me of the old meme about a female reporter stating to a Marine General that Marines are born killers. The General replied: ‘Just because you are a woman, does that make you a prostitute?’ Shut her up!