new yorker amy davidson sorkin gun control kavanaugh
courtesy Fox News
Previous Post
Next Post

The dandies at The New Yorker can’t seem to fathom that restricting Second Amendment rights to the point of preventing the city’s gun owners from transporting their firearms outside city limits is a radical impingement of an enumerated civil right. But the truth is beginning to dawn on them.

New York City is a strange and dangerous place, if the plaintiffs in a gun-control case that the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear are to be believed. The suit, which calls the city’s restrictions on transporting handguns through its streets “bizarre,” “irrational,” and “perverse,” was brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association—the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association—along with two gun owners who live in the Bronx and one from Staten Island. The case is notable for reasons that go beyond its caricature of the city and its mores. To begin with, this will be the first time the Court seriously considers the Second Amendment since it adopted a radical view of gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller…

It will also be the first opportunity for the Court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, to begin building what promises to be a disastrous pro-gun legacy. Heller, a 5–4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, upended the way that generations of judges had read the Second Amendment, by recognizing a fundamental, individual right to bear arms, unconnected to a “well-regulated militia.”

Kavanaugh, though, in the wake of Heller, appears ready to toss out as many restrictions as he can. As an appeals-court judge, he wrote, in a 2011 dissent, that the District of Columbia should not be allowed to ban semi-automatic assault rifles, largely because they were “in common use.” He added that asking people to register their guns is unconstitutional.

– Amy Davidson Sorkin for The New Yorker, Will the Supreme Court Use a New York City Regulation to Strike Down Gun Laws?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I pray that with every stroke of the pen, Kavanaugh is mindful of the memories of what the feral, leftist terrorists did to him, as he writes his opinions. His best revenge is restoring our Constitutional Republic to what our Founders intended. In other words, to Make America Great Again.

    • +1

      If the left is looking for sympathy for their cause they’re REALLY barking up the wrong tree with Kavanaugh after the way they treated him.

      • “… they’re REALLY barking up the wrong tree with Kavanaugh after the way they treated him.”

        They aren’t done with attacking Kavanaugh :

        “Representative Joe Neguse (D., Colo.), a freshman member of the House Judiciary Committee, told constituents Friday that the panel will “likely” investigate perjury claims against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh and may move to impeach him depending on their findings.”

        The only ‘kink’ in their fascist plot is, *every* Republican in the Senate remembers just how the Leftists treated Kav in his confirmation hearings.

        Good luck getting the votes you need to convict, Leftists.

        *Snicker* 😉

        (Tom in Oregon was right – Watching them is like watching a petulant 2-year-old stamp their little feet and *shriek* in frustration when they can’t get their way…)

        • Eventually, the leftists will likely start a civil war. The majority of casualties will not be from warfare but from starvation & thirst & lack of sanitation when the Big Blue Cities are cut off from their food & water supplies. The US will be split up into a bunch of minor nations, many of which will look like third and fourth world states of today. Just a matter of time.

    • Clarence Thomas never forgot the high tech lynching they subjected him to. He competed with Scalia for Most Conservative Justice.

      • Except for his bull$41t opinion about patenting life forms; which led to jurisprudence allowing monsanto to take farmers property away from them at an alarming rate.

        • If you spent hundreds of millions of R&D on a product, I think you’d be pretty protective of it too, considering how easy it is to cross plants and extract that billion dollar gene…

          That said, times has gone too far.

        • Crop genetics should be eligible for patents. In order to feed the world population, we need new innovation to drive higher yields and more vigorous crops. You can’t spur innovation without protecting the investment through the patent process.

          Farmers can still save seed. They just can’t re-use what they paid a license to use once.

        • Blame the patent office. They changed they changed their stance on patenting living organisms.

          Thomas just interpreted the law and compared to the constitution. Anyone who bought the seed signed an agreement. They agreed that Monsanto owned the traits or Monsanto would not sell them the seed.

        • WOW! There’s a lot of big Constitutional talk on here when it comes to guns. Apparently some of y’all are OK with property forfeiture. Many of the farmers who lost their entire farms NEVER used Monsanto seed. It’s agenda 21 in action, approved of by the SCOTUS.

        • WOW! There’s a lot of big Constitutional talk on here when it comes to guns. Apparently some of y’all are OK with property forfeiture. Many of the farmers who lost their entire farms NEVER used Monsanto seed.

          Moron, you clearly do not know what you are talking about and read some garbage on the net somewhere and are repeating it.

          1. Lab hybrid seeds have been patented for over 100 years.
          2. Why would property forfeiture when you r business fails be different for farmers than a guy with a store who goes belly up due to changing retail?
          3. where are your shoes made asshole? I’m thinking they are not handmade by a small shoe factory in New Hampshire, of which there used to be a few hundred, , but somewhere in the far east. Are you buying all your food at some small farmers’ market in, are you paying $25 lb for your meat produced on a small family farm? Small farms failed because the world changed lie it changed for a fkload of small business.
          Is the supreme court at fault for the fact that retail changed from town center small stores, to department stores to strip mall, to regular mall, to big box chain, and to internet? I’m glad you never go to Home Depot, shop on Amazon, by bread not made by an artisanal baker, etc.
          4. Patented seeds, GMO or hybirid help small farms and lower their costs, both in the US and worldwide. The benefit in yield is on average 12 times the amount the increase in seed cost is. For every $10 more in seed costs a farmer pays they average $120 more in yield. When I was a kid 45 years ago, in addition t my paper route, I grew and sold tomatoes, and Burpee seeds, the main mail order/catalog supplier, hyd patented hybrids for sale

      • Why the fk should you not be able to patent GMO seeds? Certain hybrids have been patented for 100 years.

        In the case of rice they have nearly doubled per acre yields in India. So a company that spends hundreds of millions to allow farmers to get 180% increase in yields, and charging 4% more in total productions costs for the seeds is evil and their work should not be protected? why would their work be less protected than any other patent holder???

        Hundreds varieties of rice that are naturally occurring, or natural hybrid, out of patent modern age man made hybrid are not GMO are available; as well as in-patent GMO for purchase at a small premium each year, a tiny added cost compared to greater yield each year, are available to farmers to choose from.

        You do know lots of organic non GMO seeds are patented, right? You can patent them in Norway, Sweden, Germany etc etc

        • First of all, you started your rebuttal with ad hominem, which never enhances a discussion. I realize that I may have triggered a true red republican by insinuating that Thomas may not be the Defender of Liberty you like him to be, but if you’re going to get all triggered about it, you aren’t going to make your point very well.
          Second of all, instead of arguing to my point, you argued something else that you are wrong about; namely, seed patent law in the U.S. I made no such claim that research shouldn’t be protected. I pointed out that jurisprudence from SCOTUS enabled Monsanto to successfully sue farmers; which it did. It was a 6-2 decision, so Thomas was only the mouthpiece, but he was still the guy who had worked for Monsanto prior to hearing the case.
          Third of all: What happens in other countries is irrelevant to my original statement.
          Finally, you never addressed the FACT that Monsanto has successfully sued farmers for patent infringement when they never bought Monsanto seed and have, in fact, never lost a case.
          To illuminate your ignorance of U.S. law in reference to seed patents: An excerpt from a a paper (Intellectual Property and Genetically Modified Seeds:
          The United States, Trade, and the Developing World) written this millennium by a Northwestern Law student, posted on Northwestern’s Scholarly Commons portal:

          “Mounting pressure on the federal government from seed lobbying groups and other parties in the private sector spurred Congress to repeal the free seed distribution program in 1924. The 1980 Supreme Court decision Diamond v. Chakrabarty laid the legal groundwork for the “privatization and commodification” of the genetics of seeds. The seed industry underwent a rapid change. By 1996, the first patented commercially grown, genetically-modified food crops were planted in the United States. By 1997, U.S. farmers planted more than 8 million acres of genetically engineered soy and more than 3.5 million acres of genetically engineered corn. Commodification also led to massive consolidation in the biotech industry, a trend that continues today, as illustrated by Monsanto’s recent string of acquisitions. Since the early nineties, Monsanto has purchased Holden’s Foundation Seed for $1.2 billion, acquired a forty percent hold on the seed company Dekelo, and gained full ownership of Asgrow, Agracetus, and Global Calgene — all major players in the global seed industry. B. Privately Influenced Federal Legislation Patent rights are constitutionally guaranteed under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The rationale of the patent system is to protect ideas and promote research and innovation. ‘Until 1930, plants and seeds were not seen as patentable material ‘”
          Prior to 1930, seeds were not patented in the U.S.
          Prior to 1980, gene modified products were not patentable.
          Furthermore, Monsanto and GMO crops are on an ever-expanding list of countries that ban them. Not that what other countries do is relevant, but it seems salient to the discussion.
          It would seem as though you are more concerned about the I.P. rights and profits of corporations than you are about the rights of farmers.
          If you are going to be obscenely insulting on top of your ignorance, I’m going to leave it here.

        • Mike, I live on a farm and you don’t understand the problem. First, there is an entire class of farmers who get a premium from their customers for NOT having GMO seed. If a GMO farm nearby is careless and some seed gets mixed into the non-GMO crop it can ruin the crop value for them. Then Monsanto turns around and actually sues the non-GMO farmer for not having bought the seed from them. Lose-lose for the non-GMO farmer.

    • Just as with the election of Trump himself, they really, really, really thought they were going to win that fight.

      • I’ll suggest that for Trump’s entire life he was a liberal democrat (not a filthy leftist). Most conservatives were rightfully skeptical. I truly believe that the left’s scorched earth attacks on him during the general election period permanently pushed him to the right. Not out of discovering conservative principles, but rather for revenge. And for a guy like me, who will benefit for decades from his presidency because of his judicial nominees, he has my eternal gratitude and ongoing support through 2020. I believe Kavanaugh is different in that he is truly a conservative but more centered. It’s my hope that he abandons his centrist instincts and moves further to the right. Again, I don’t care if it’s due to an epiphany or revenge. Either way, it ends up better for America.

        • “One could say he was more liberal until he was mugged by the left.”

          I am convinced that experience fundamentally changed him.

          I sure hope I’m proven right in a little over one year’s time…

        • It looks like the Starbucks guy is getting an earful pf what the guys who have been taking his money for decades really think of him. One way or another, seems like that would change him, too.

    • Be nice to Amy. She put a lot of effort into finding so many different AR-15s to put into that one picture…

  2. The dandies at The New Yorker can’t seem to fathom that restricting Second Amendment rights to the point of preventing the city’s gun owners from transporting their firearms outside city limits is a radical impingement of an enumerated civil right.

    Oh, they know that New York City’s law is a huge infringement — and they LIKE it!

    • Still, it’s kind of fun watching them twist themselves in circles trying to convince us that it isn’t an infringement.

    • This is literally the stupidest gun law. And that saying a lot. It literally keeps you from taking guns OUT of the state. Like they are trying to regulate actions in another state.

  3. Oh no, he’s building a legacy of protecting the rights of the citizens…

    Say, what’s that sweet-looking blowback at the far right?

  4. We need to push back at every opportunity against the ridiculous notion that Heller was in any way “radical”. There was a fashion in the mid-to-late 20th century towards pretending that the 2nd Amendment was dead letter, that it meant nothing at all. This was the “radical” view, that was not supported by case law and stood in defiance of the constitution’s wording and early use. But fashion is all that it was, not binding precedent, not settled law.

    • What is “radical” is the Lefts gutting of the 2 nd. amendment in particular and the Constitution in general.

    • Maybe they mean radical in a different sense, like:
      Dude, the supreme court totally just affirmed that the second amendment, like, means what it says.

      Radical, broham!

      • Heller is an abomination. The entire premise of common use is flawed. Rights are not, by definition, subject to governmental infringement, restriction, regulation, or whatever word fits, in any way for any reason. That is what makes it a right and not a privilege which may be further taken away. Scalia was wrong. Kavanagh’s writings indicate he is equally wrong. No law may be permitted whatsoever which seeks to limit the free exercise of a right. None.

        • I’m hoping it’s just that incremental shit going on, since I have read the second several times, and I don’t recall “in common use” being mentioned in it.

        • Exactly when Scalia died I understand that people didn’t want to speak ill of him but the Heller opinion missed the mark on every level. Rights aren’t unlimited according to him……

        • Falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater? (Riposte to your “no right may be limited”; apparently not so.)

        • Falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater? (Riposte to your “no right may be limited”; apparently not so.)

          Angry Dad you are incorrect. Yes one can yell fire falsely in a crowed theatre. Your right to exercise free speech has not been infringed in any way. The word “fire” has not been banned. If by doing so you harm others then yes laws may punish that act. But no law prevents you from doing it because we don’t ban the tools of the first, words and thoughts. The same applies to the 2nd. The tools of the 2nd and their keeping and bearing harms no one. No law seeking to ban arms is any more Constitutional than banning words.

  5. Expect to see a LOT more of these, especially right before and after oral argument, with increasingly shrill / panicked tones.

    This is why NYSR&PA is such a good test case. Nowhere but NYC would have even thought such ridiculously draconian restrictions are appropriate. But the NYC politicos are living in such an echo chamber that they refuse to see the freight train coming, and so they are going to continue to defend this to the last ditch.

    Were they defending something a little less controversial (e.g., a “may issue” regime that wasn’t essentially “no issue”), they might have a chance of turning Roberts’ head. But IMO there’s no way he can let this one go unreversed without essentially flushing Heller/MacDonald. Even gun control advocates (well, those who actually think) admit that’s extremely unlikely.

    • Absolutely. Why this writer for the NYer thinks that upholding the law will mean that citizens will not be allowed to transport firearms in the city is beyond me. In fact, that is what is so stunningly ridiculous about the law–that one CAN transport firearms around town, at least to various gun store emporia or a shooting range, but CANNOT leave town is patently illogical. The conduct is the same, only the destination differs.

      • This won’t be the end of it.

        Even if this results in more rulings in the future further solidifying the 2A by this current Court, the Leftists will consider this Court to be an aberration that must be stamped out when the balance of the Court (and it *will*, eventually) returns Leftist in political bias.

        And they will do it with every bit as much righteous glee as when ‘Dred Scott’ was properly overturned. And they will gut it by returning intermediate scrutiny.

        Don’t *ever* forget they are playing the long game on this one, TTAGers…

        • So mebbe we really, really need Trump for 4 more?! To advance the cause by replacing RBG with Amy Barrett, and be prepared to fill Thomas’ seat with another, etc. etc. And ditto re Breyer, and any of the others who depart.

    • On that glorious day the whaling gnashing of teeth pissing moaning and whining will be a hymn to the Constitution,so much so that the founders will hear it from above.

    • May she Rest In Peace. Soon.
      (I wonder if LBK can chime in here…. what and who is responsible for demanding Ginsberg undergo a competency hearing? What is the process for that? For all we know, she could be in a coma in a vegetative state. How can we get her declared legally incompetent?)

      • As far as the Constitution says, the only way to remove a justice for any reason is the impeachment process.

        • Did somebody say “impeachment”?

          I’m under the impression the standard for that is currently in the process of, … not changing, … “evolving”?

        • Impeachment for a well and truly incapacitated justice would be easy. POTUS requests it and it will happen.

          If that justice were to be RBG then after the impeachment is when the real noise starts when her replacement gets nominated.

          • Is it POTUS who initiates it? I’m sincerly curious about the process. Wouldnit require an independent physician to examine her? Having her appear at a public hearing? Make her prove she’s still competent. I’d give her 6 more months. In the meantime, it leaves the leftist terrorists shorthanded on the court, so short term, that’s a win for America. But if she fails to appear in a few months, I’d start the process with the hopes she can be replaced by 2020, if she lives that long. And I’ll remind folks here, McConnell has already clarified, the Biden rule is ONLY in effect when opposing parties control the presidency and senate. He fully intends to take up nominations, if there are any, in the last year of Trump’s Presidency.

        • What’s especially interesting about Constitution’s wording about impeaching judges is that the standard is “good behavior”—a much lower standard that “high crimes and misdemeanors” for impeaching a President.

        • If you think Nancy Pelosi is going to impeach Ginsburg I have to ask what you are smoking.

          Ginsburg could enter a coma tomorrow and if she does not actually pass away in 21 months, Trump is never going to replace her. Trump would still need a couple of months since the Dems could slow walk it even with rules nuked. She probably has a 95% chance of surviving. Given Thomas weight, it is more likely we would see a President Kamila Harris or the like appointee to replace him and game over if Trump does not win a second term.

          Whatever piece of shit Ginsburg is on her decisions, her life history is one of being a very persistent and tenacious person. You can bet her living will says maximum intervention to keep yer heart beating until January 2021 and then pull the plug. (she doesn’t even need quite that long to thwart a first trump term trump appointment).

        • “Is it POTUS who initiates it?”

          It depends on how you define “initiate”. POTUS can ask the Congress to do it and in certain circumstances certainly would. Even HuffPo says this would be the preferred way to go about things in certain circumstances. Of course the House can do it on their own though and pass it on to the Senate without POTUS.

          For my hypothetical I’m assuming that the Justice in question is well and truly incapacitated In a way that no one is going to argue about. Like, totally brain dead and requiring life support or so obviously insane that it’s not a question.

          That said, in today’s political climate it might be something the House would be unwilling to move on if it was the “wrong” Justice.

        • @EWT:

          Realistically either a Justice or the POTUS can be impeached, convicted and removed for anything provided the House and the Senate agree that they should be. If that reason is for good cause or for politics is really rather immaterial.

          In theory, if Democrats controlled the House and had 60+ votes in the Senate they could impeach Trump for wearing white after Labor Day or for combing his hair the wrong way. They don’t really need a valid reason. They just need the votes.

          What keeps that from happening is a certain level of professionalism in the Senate (historically at least) and the knowledge that such and abuse of power would not be taken well by the public.


          Nancy Pelosi, for all her faults, is a savvy politician. As such she’s praying really hard that RGB hangs on until after Trump is out of office because Nancy knows it’s a no-win situation for the Democrats otherwise. If RGB dies, well the Democrats are fucked. If RGB is truly incapacitated in a way that no one can realistically argue she will return to the bench then Nancy has a lose/lose on her hands and she knows it.

          If she agrees to impeach RGB she’s going to have trouble in her own party, real trouble. On the other hand if she simply refuses to impeach RGB for long enough when it’s obvious to the public that RGB isn’t ever going to come back then she makes it almost certain that she sinks her party in the next election to the point that Trump is almost guaranteed reelection and the House goes back to the GOP.

          As such I suspect Pelosi would delay the impeachment to try to circle the wagons or wait for a miracle but would eventually have to go through with it, especially since GOP House members would file repeated articles to do so which she would have to explain not taking up. I think at that point she would hope she had delayed the process long enough to put the nomination past the next election. Failing the delay working to this end she’d have to hope the Democrats in the Senate could sink the next set of Trump nominees.

          Simply refusing to act means Trump gets the nomination either way. Either in this cycle or the next when Nancy’s [in]actions hand the House back to the GOP.

          Nancy really, really, really hopes RGB holds on at this point. In fact, IIRC she’s one of the ones who expressed some displeasure with RGB for not stepping down during Obama’s second term for exactly this reason.

          • We don’t know if RBG isn’t on life support. Literally. There are enough leftist donors to create an at home hospital for her.

        • My bet is that impeachment would never be initiated, by anyone, unless requested by all, or nearly all, of the other justices.

      • She may retire at the end of the term–which is the same effect since this case will not be argued until next fall.

        • Nope. Short of her passing away, RBG’s not leaving the Court as long a PDT is in office. Period.

          And even if she’s irrevocably incapitated, the only way to remove her from the bench will require a majority of votes in the House to start with . . . which will never happen before 2020.

  6. If the justices first duty is to the U S Constitution it would be a 9 – 0 decision,one can only hope Kavanaugh is what the Marxist left fears he is.

    • The reason that this should be a 9-0 decision to overturn the law is the absurdity of the law on its face. NYC prohibts taking a cased and loaded gun to Vermont where the gun can be legally carried openly or concealed. in doing so NYC is claiming jurisdiction over other States. I wouldn’t even consider this a Second Amendment case. It is an interstate commerce casem

      • My understanding is that this suit challenges a city regulation that bars transport outside the city.

        As such, where you want to go isn’t really an issue since your travel could be completely intrastate, from NYC to Long Island or upstate.

        Therefore I wouldn’t argue this on Commerce Clause grounds especially since this court is probably predisposed to overturn Wickard.

        • “Therefore I wouldn’t argue this on Commerce Clause grounds especially since this court is probably predisposed to overturn Wickard.”

          Don’t tease me like that! It’s *CRUEL*!!!

          *snicker* 🙂

          Does tossing ‘Wickard’ mean home-made NFA ‘toys’ are good-to-go?

        • No, because the NFA is technically a tax law. So it doesn’t need the Commerce Clause.

          Yes, it’s all bullsh*t, but there you are.

        • Anon is right about the NFA Geoff.

          That law was written back when Congress gave a flying fuck about doing things the “right” way. They knew they couldn’t ban things so they put a tax on them that was for an astronomical amount of money at the time.

          That said, while it wouldn’t affect the NFA, an overturning of Wickard would change this entire country dramatically in more ways than I can think of. Listing them here would result in a wall-o-text literally hundreds of pages long.

        • “But outside the city includes outside the state… Unless the prohibition only applies in NY State”

          I still wouldn’t want to go that route because I want to see the court flip Wickard which means I want a good test case for that. This case is a good gun rights case so I’d like to see it win on those grounds and turn the Commerce Clause back to what it’s supposed to be on another, better case.

        • There is no reason the Court couldn’t give both reasons. As it stands now New York City and State prohibit me from bringing a hangun into or through the State thereby revoking my carry privleges in Indiana. Ohio and Pennsylvania if I must visit or transit through the State. If the Court rules only on the narrowest aspect of NYC residents Second Amendment rights then leaves the transportation of firearms by non residents where they are today. If they rule that it also interfered with interstate commerce then it opens the door to striking down restrictions on out-of-State residents.

      • lets hear it for Constitutional carry,I see yesterday South Dakota both houses passed it and now is headed to the governor for signature.

  7. New York City is a strange and dangerous place, if the plaintiffs in a gun-control case that the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear are to be believed. — Amy Davidson Sorkin

    And yet another example that supports my assertion: Progressive minds operate on emotion, fantasy, and virtue. In the Progressive mind, New York City should NOT be a strange/dangerous place. However, carrying firearms for self-defense proves that New York City IS indeed a dangerous place. Therefore, the Progressive mind denies reality, declares that New York City IS safe, and demands that firearm possession is illegal.

    Notice that declaring New York City to be “safe” involves emotion (unsafe is scary, safe feels good!), fantasy (the city really can be safe!), and virtue (the city should be safe!).

    Notice also that Progressives are perfectly content sacrificing as many people as necessary to support their delusion: that New York City is so “safe” that no one “needs” to carry a firearm for self-defense — or for any other purpose for that matter.

      • DaveDetroit,

        It has taken me a very long time to figure this out. And I am more convinced than ever that I am correct.

        This brings up two questions:
        (1) How do we get the masses to recognize this?
        (2) Now that we know how the Progressive mind works, what is our best strategy to move forward and stop their incessant demands for the destruction of our society?

        • “This brings up two questions:
          (1) How do we get the masses to recognize this?”

          You *can’t*. Full stop.

          It is literally their ‘religion’. They believe it, there is *nothing* you can tell them, no proof you can show them, that will change their minds. It makes them feel very good and righteous in believing it. It is their mental ‘morphine’, the “Opiate of the masses” that Stalin spoke of. All they can see is shining future of “No guns!”.

          You will have the same exact chance convincing Christians to drop their beliefs with an orchestrated and coordinated public relations campaign. The harder you try to force them to see the new “truth”, the stronger they will resist.

          You. Just. Can’t. Do it…

        • To clarify –

          They have *zero* intentions of changing their position on guns.

          We have *zero* intentions of changing *our* position on guns.

          The only solution is a peaceful dissolution of this national ‘marriage’.

          (If anything, “For the children”…)

        • “Actually, that’s not the only solution. That’s just your preferred solution.”

          I think it was the Patrick Swayze movie ‘Roadhouse’ where his character said :

          ” All you have to do is follow three simple rules. One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it’s absolutely necessary. And three, be nice.”

          ” I want you to be nice until it’s time to not be nice.”

          Kinda covers it, don’t you think?

        • “Now that we know how the Progressive mind works, what is our best strategy to move forward and stop their incessant demands for the destruction of our society?”

          There are a couple of things to keep in mind here.

          First, you cannot reason someone out of a position they have emoted themselves into.

          Secondly, and more to the point, these people generally haven’t emoted themselves into the position they’re in which is good for us. The way they’ve arrived at the conclusions that they have is because they’ve been maneuvered into these positions by very, very clever propaganda which has been introduced and built on for a long time.

          The best propaganda doesn’t convince you of anything in and of itself. It plants the seed in your mind and convinces you that you arrived at the conclusion on your own by steering your learning process towards a desired destination. The problem is that when this kind of programming runs headlong into reality the person who’s been “programmed” has some serious cognitive dissonance. That’s where you can take advantage of things and start to undo what’s been done to them because they already started the process.

          It’s pretty easy to start down that road. Simply ask them a fuckton of questions about this which they cannot answer. Start with your OP and, like a child, keep asking them “OK, why? Why do you think that? What’s the logical justification?”. They already know there’s an error in there but asking them “Why? Why Why?” forces them to examine that in more detail so that they can attempt to explain it in a way that wins you over.

          For most people what’s already started as a crack becomes a gaping hole when you start doing this. Most people will eventually realize the error. A small percentage will just go apeshit.

        • “It’s pretty easy to start down that road. Simply ask them a fuckton of questions about this which they cannot answer.”

          Strych is right. It actually *can* be done. An anti can be converted to the pro-gun side. We’ve had people in TTAG who admitted they were on the anti side of the fence, and they changed to being pro-gun. One of them mentioned here their turning point was when they realized the Progressives had flat-out *lied* to them about guns. That was their epiphany, when they wondered what else the Leftists may have have lied to them about?

          Discovering the truth on your own can be pretty powerful stuff.

          Personally, I likely don’t have the patience for it. So I will mock them mercilessly instead… 🙂

      • Well then, you’ve alluded to the answer in your own reply without recognizing that it really is this simple…. those on the left, without exception, are mentally ill. They too are on a spectrum. The farther to the left they are, the more severely they are effected.

        • …and *they* are convinced we are the sick ones.

          If this were a marriage divorce, care to speculate on how it might play out?

        • Like this?

          I *really* hope good sense takes hold first…

    • It does at that,however Leftards pay no heed to language or facts,only Feelings,whoa whoa whoa Feelings.

      • however Leftards pay no heed to language or facts
        As do many on the right as well, including folk here.

        The militia prefatory statement, not a clause, is very important. It provides a reason the founders felt it important to keep and bear arms. And for the purpose of the militia, an Army of the People, Miller (1939) correctly opined that weapons of efficacy to the military ARE specifically protected for the People.
        Yet the left keeps screeching about military style weapons and the right never reminds them of Miller and what that really means.

    • Well said!

      Though I would add a bit to that. It says, “right of the people” so they (we) can form a militia.

    • Reminds me of: “A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.” Who has the right to food, a well balanced breakfast or the people?

      • It’d be more closely parallel to say “A well regulated system of agriculture being necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to grow and store food shall not be infringed.”

        But you’re spot on, logically.

        Nobody in his right mind would try to argue that that sentence means only farmers or the state have a right to grow food or store it. (Or eat breakfast, or…)

        People only think the Second Amendment’s phrasing is ungrammatical or complex because they have to violate both grammar and logic in order to pretend it conforms to their personal misbeliefs.

        • That last is absolutely correct. I cannot even count the number of times I’ve been told in an argument that the way I understood it was not the way really, really smart people had always known it. I invariably respond that you learned how to understand those 27 words when you were in the 8th grade, all those smart folks spend their lifetimes trying to lie to people about what it means. Just *read* it! I don’t think I have ever been successful.

  8. This case, in its absolute absurdity to begin with, helps us understand and perhaps even excuse all the other recent 2A cases that SCOTUS rejected.

    It would surely seem that this one is a “no brainer” win for 2A. We really cannot afford to lose ANY ground at this level.

    • TFred,

      I believe the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review previous Second Amendment challenges because they did not have a reliable majority to uphold the Second Amendment. Now that Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy, the court is more likely to have a solid majority to uphold the Second Amendment.

      Having said all that, many people are concerned that Chief Justice Roberts is potentially somewhat squishy on the Second Amendment. If that is true, we can all breath easier if a conservative originalist replaces Justice Ginsburg and/or Breyer.

      Meanwhile, everyone seems to be pretty confident that the current court will uphold the Second Amendment in this New York City case. Expanding beyond that case could get interesting without an additional solid conservative justice.

    • The Leftists read it.

      Knowing what the enemy reads is valuable intel on how they operate…

  9. Assuming that the U.S. Supreme court rules that:
    — the Second Amendment applies outside the home
    — courts must use strict scrutiny when analyzing restrictions

    Will such a decision ensure that current laws which ban/tax suppressors and short-barreled rifles/shotguns be nullified?

    Will such a decision ensure that the Hughe’s Amendment is nullified?

    Will such a decision require that fedzilla and the states stop all firearm registries?

    Bonus question: could we win a lawsuit to stop all registries on strict scrutiny of the Second Amendment AND our right to privacy? After all, if women have a right to privacy (with respect to pregnancy), why wouldn’t we have a right to privacy (with respect to firearm ownership)?

  10. “Heller, a 5–4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, upended the way that generations of judges had read the Second Amendment, by recognizing a fundamental, individual right to bear arms, unconnected to a “well-regulated militia.”

    Whether or not you think the 2A should be connected or unconnected to a “well-regulated militia” is irrelevant. If it’s not connected to a “well-regulated militia” then it’s an individual right. If it is connected to a “well-regulated militia” then it’s still an individual right under the ruling in Presser v. Illinois</i. (1886) which states in part “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms…”

    So Lefties, suck a duck. If it’s unconnected you lose. If it is connected you lose because the militia, as found by SCOTUS is everyone capable of picking up a weapon.

    • strych9,

      It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States …

      I really have to question whether we can count the millions of soy-boys and metrosexuals as a reserve military or militia force.

      Like it or not, whoever is most ruthless and violent quite often rules the masses. That excludes soy-boys and metrosexuals.

      • Whether or not some people are effective soldiers or not isn’t the point. The point is that they, whether they like it or not, are considered part of the militia and therefore individually have the right to bear arms whether they choose to exercise it or not.

        This was made clear in Presser and by the U.S. Militia Code under 10 U.S. Code § 246.

        No matter how you cut it the anti-gunners are wrong about this based on codified law and SCOTUS precedent. The odd thing is that they argue Presser sides with them when the finding quite clearly does not.

        • Strych9,

          I agree entirely with all of your commentary. I was simply using the Presser ruling as an opportunity to ridicule soy-boys and metrosexuals.

          I was also subtly pointing out the down-side of the Progressive push to produce effeminate males: such males may very well be incapable of defending our nation. That is most certainly NOT a virtue as Progressives would have us believe.

        • Fair enough.

          The only thing I would point out about “soy boys” is that I think, in large enough groups, they are quite capable of violence.

          That said, were they to get violent I don’t think they have the balls to keep it up for long once the consequences of their actions become clear.

          • I’d even suggest that those soy boy terrorists are the most likely to commit violence FIRST. And I agree with what you’re saying, that once we begin to DEFEND ourselves and our Constitutional Republic against their “War of Leftist Aggression”, the most likely outcome will be the literal genocide of millions of filthy leftists. They maybyet learn that you can’t unring a bell.

      • Every militia needs pop up targets. It’s part of the training to keep the rest of us well- regulated. So we go to one end of the range and the soy boys go to the other.

    • “The states cannot …” is very clearly violated repeatedly and blatantly over the past 80 years or so, and that ruling did not slow them down at all.

  11. NYC is and always was full of it. Anybody remember the character from the Soprano’s, Paulie Gualtieri? In real life he was apprehended after multiply threatening a mid town club owner. Said ‘threatening’ involved pistol whipping the guy in broad day light on the street in front said club in front of a horde of eye witnesses. Shortly after while being followed by a car load of Feds he ran them into the barriers on Broadway and whence finally slowed down and encouraged to assume the position, he was in full possession of the pistol which apparently still had active chunks of the aforementioned club owner and was subsequently found to be a ballistic match in a recent murder.

    According to conventional if not New Yorker wisdom, this should have been a life ending event. Say your good byes and head to Sing Sing for the duration, right? If memory serves it was the late 80’s, not so very long before ‘Goodfellas’ and then ‘The Soprano’s’. To what end would anybody in their right mind encourage more laws when the already draconian system is seemingly enforced only for sports enthusiasts.

    • The irony that our country’s most militant anti-gun tyrannical state might be responsible for being the straw that breaks the gun grabber’s backs nationwide is exhilarating. Much the way DC was entirely too radical in their obstinace caused a reversal that effects our land from seas to shining sea.

      • Just watch the courts *ignore* a “strict scrutiny” ruling with a lack of logic like – “Due to the unusual danger guns provide…”

      • I suspect the response to the grant of cert is going to be a high speed repeal of that law. So I’m not going to get real excited in advance.

  12. The author describes the case as “broad right to travel with them.“ The case challenges the restriction that a gun cannot leave the city. As of now, a gun owner may only travel to and from a gun range in the city. From there she leaps into open carry, death rates in Alaska and Louisiana, then into school shootings.
    What she cannot see is the reality that guns leave the city daily. The odds of a gun owner being caught taking a gun outside the city is essentially nil.

    • Exactly right. Guns are being taken in and out of the city all day, every day, by people who for one reason or another don’t give a rat’s behind about the latest diktat from Tammany Hall.

      This case exists because most people *want* to obey the law — which is why they’re trying to get this stupid, unenforceable, un-obeyable law removed.

  13. It would be nice if President Trump could get one or two more judges on the Supreme Court, Conservatives need long lasting support on the high court, & some appeals court appointments would be helpful also.

  14. As an appeals-court judge, he wrote, in a 2011 dissent, that the District of Columbia should not be allowed to ban semi-automatic assault rifles, largely because they were “in common use.”

    “Common Use” is absolute bullshit as applied in Heller by Scalia. The only common use test for the 2nd Amendment is the efficacy of a weapon type for the military and ergo must be protected for the People. This was the proper test used in Miller (1939). Were semi-automatic rifles and pistols not protected when they first came out and were not in common use by the People? But now that they are in common use by the People those weapons are magically protected? BULLSHIT

    And it scares me Kav thinks like that.

    • This very example has already been debated on this very forum the last time kav was mentioned here and proven to be taken way out of context. He is being forced to rule on established interpretation, not create law or policy as this quote is often abused as.

  15. It’s funny how we can go back only a few pages and watch Kav demonized by these same forum comments the moment he was mentioned as something of a fly-by-night traitor to all that was conservative 2A. It’s comedy gold.

  16. I have no faith in Justice Roberts. A lot of folks assume he can count to two when we know he can’t count to ten. His record of getting to 4 is already sketchy.

    • I think it’s more likely that the Democrats win by running a race-pandering diversifascist candidate like Kamala Harris or Alexandra Occasional-Cortex. Or maybe Trump decides he’s tired of the whole government shitshow and goes back into business.

      But you never know… I wouldn’t be disappointed at all if you were right.

      • AOC won’t be 35 in 2020, so we’re temporarily safe from her…

        • Aren’t they still working on that concept that you can just decide for yourself what your age is? Like you can decide what your sex is?

      • I think Trump retiring could actually be a good move. If he steps back voluntarily, declares victory, and someone really popular and without baggage steps up to run, there’s a good change of defeating the Democrats. The person I have in mind is Nikki Haley. She’s in good standing with all parts of the party, and is extremely tough and would not take any crap from anyone. I don’t think it works if she would have to primary Trump, but if he anoints her as a successor it would work perfectly.

        • ” The person I have in mind is Nikki Haley.”

          Oh, hell, yeah!

          Nikki “I don’t get confused” Haley would be *awesome* as the first female minority President.

          What an outstanding way to to cut the balls (if the even have them) clean off the Leftists…

        • Sorry re Nikki Haley, she did a great job as UN Ambassador, but she lost me long ago by: 1) dropping the Stars and Bars from SC’s state flag/seal, whatever; and 2) let the Feds prosecute Dylann Roof for hate crime jive, as if SC can prosecute to a death penalty a shooter of 9 unarmed churchgoers. States’ rights, and all of that, plus hate crime is a jive, truly jive idea. She also quit the party at the UN and the Administration a bit too soon, unless there’s personal significant health or other reasons therefor, she’s just a clever opportunist. I don’t trust her a bit on the fundamentals.

    • I’m not feeling great about Trump’s chances of a second term. It’s true that the Democrats are working hard to out-nutbar each other, but Trump can’t rely just on the other side being crappy. A big reason he won in 2016 is the complacency on the left. Everyone assumed that he had no chance, that Clinton had it in the bag. Remember the 99% chance of winning headlines? This time around, everyone on the other side is burning with the fire of a billion exploding suns to get him out. His next couple years needs to be about finding enough votes to counteract that. I don’t know if he can do that.

      • Same here, but I fear his ego won’t let him step aside…

      • None of us thought he could do it the first time. I am more sure about voting for him again than I was the first time. I think the Dem candidate is going to be crushed.

      • Trump needs one more crack at another SCOTUS appointee and all this 2nd ammendment horse shit disappears. Ginsberg needs to give it up. Leaving a 6-3 court and a strong economy would make Trump possibly the most successful POTUS of modern times.

    • Like the old aviation FAA joke goes, “We’re not happy, unless the Leftists are unhappy…”

  17. Q.: Will the Supreme Court Use a New York City Regulation to Strike Down Gun Laws?

    A.: Well, a man can dream, can’t he?

  18. Ahhh the ramifications are beginning to dawn on them. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Been waiting so long for this.

  19. “..Kavanaugh is Building a ‘Disastrous Pro-Gun Legacy’”

    Yeah. Disastrous to your ideas of being able to control others.

  20. Democrats seem to have a knack for creating dangerous places to live!
    New York, Chicagoland, Memphis, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc!
    The strange thing is that their voters approve of it, they keep electing democrats!

Comments are closed.