“This [New York State Rifle & Pistol] case signaled not only the court’s growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today’s case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down,” UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Newsweek.
“A significant portion of the gun safety movement’s current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years,” Winkler added. “I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down.”
— Katherine Fung in SCOTUS Second Amendment Hearing Signals Justices Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws
Newly invigorated second amendment?
Apart from that being an odd thing to consider as being able to be invigorated … Great! Maybe we can then start on restoring the first as well.
If only we could convince the Libertarians to stop defending monopolies…
Any rational “Libertarian” would only support a monopoly if the monopoly did not utilize government subsidies and the crony-corporate lobby to corner the market. Libertarians support free market capitalism which leads to far fewer monopolies than our precious “democratic republic” does.
Nathan Freeman,
There are additional factors which enable monopolies outside of government subsidies and strict government policies, regulations, and laws which inhibit competition.
One example: “lawfare”. I know someone personally who initiated an outstanding business to provide a very valuable service to our local community–in direct competition with a multi-billion dollar U.S. company. That multi-billion dollar U.S. company, upon learning about this tiny startup, promptly buried that tiny startup in frivolous lawsuits, knowing that the tiny startup could not finance a protracted and expensive legal battle. Thus the tiny startup immediately closed shop.
Another example: delayed/minuscule/cross-subsidized profits. In the same situation that I described above, that multi-billion dollar U.S. company vowed to provide a competing service at a substantially lower price–even at a loss if necessary–for as long as it took for the tiny startup to fail (at which time the multi-billion dollar company would raise prices to resume a profitable operation).
I am sure there are other factors at play as well which strain the idea of a truly “free” market.
“provide a competing service at a substantially lower price–even at a loss if necessary”
China has successfully used this strategy against U.S. business in the past. Yet, we don’t seem to learn from it.
True capitalism has never been tried.
The libertarians defending the rights of social media and media companies have been deceived by the extant propaganda. if they truly understood the depth of involvement between the goobermint and media/social media companies they would see them as the agents of the state that they are. The only way to get a monopoly is have state capture or regulatory capture and to use the power of the state against your competitors. If left libertarians understood the situation correctly they would become right libertarians and oppose the monopolies.
It would also help if both republicans/conservatives, and democrats/liberals would stop demonizing libertarians. When I hear the same shit from both sides attacking libertarians it makes me put on the Alex Jones conspiracy tin foil hat and think both sides are being manipulated into it.
The federal government, as well as every state and local municipality, bends over backwards to help big business get bigger, while $hitting on small business. Then they brag about bringing in jobs. Who’s paying for those tax subsidies that ALL big businesses enjoy? The little guy. It increases the disparity. It’s obscene, yet it’s celebrated. ALL business tax subsidies should be banned nationwide.
“It would also help if both republicans/conservatives, and democrats/liberals would stop demonizing libertarians.”
I think Republicans have mostly helped big business hide behind Libertarian talking points thanks to wealthy business people like the Kochs funding their “think tank” propaganda networks. Democrats just get upset when they find out some of these people donate to Republicans.
“It would also help if both republicans/conservatives, and democrats/liberals would stop demonizing libertarians.”
Since you seem to believe both parties “demonize” Libertarians you might stop and consider that perhaps, the real hard corps Libertarians are giving both sides (as in- a majority of people) a good reason to be wary of them. Personally, I believe in a nation having and maintaining some standards which are at present under severe attack by the wokesters. The “true” Libertarians, (like those old “Free Radio people), IMO, border on being actual Anarchists. Again, just my opinion.
the “newly invigorated Second Amendment” part means for SCOTUS. It was the same for heller, it was “newly invigorated Second Amendment” for that court too. Every time they rule positively for the second its “newly invigorated Second Amendment”. Every time the gun grabbers are defeated its a “newly invigorated Second Amendment”.
If you want a “newly invigorated First Amendment” or any amendment, you need to put a stop to the gun grabbers first because once they get a firm hold on the second they will be able to do the same to any of they others by setting court precedent. Already some of the gun grabber organizations are getting on the band wagon for limiting free speech about guns, and have been some what successful in getting some companies to go along with them, for example YouTube & facebook, and have extended that into other areas that Chipman hinted at and the government has already tried to do with Section 230 changes and social media. They tried it for the 4th and 14th also in caniglia v. strom. So in this case if you want to save the 1st, 4th, 14’th or any of the others you need to save the 2nd first because all of those infringement pushes are originating in the gun control fight to infringe the second and if they can win there and set precedent at SCOTUS it will mean SCOTUS is using “balancing interest” and those others against infringement will not stand.
AMEN and praise Jesus Christ and John Moses Browning
. . . and then pass the ammunition please !!!
It could be decided once and for all by a decision that states all gun control laws are unconstitutional. The supremes never cure a problem, they just put another ban aid on it.
all gun control laws are already “unconstitutional” because they were never “constitutional” to begin with. The constitution never grants or provides or claims that laws created must be constitutional, only they be created under “authority”. Its just a matter of saying they are constitutional or not at, eventually, SCOTUS.
Actually, a law is not automatically “constitutional” by its creation, it only exists as assumed “constitutional” until its ruled to be “unconstitutional”.
Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.”
It says “under the Authority of the United States” not under the “Authority of the Constitution” so what ever authority given to the United State (and by extension the states) is used to create law based upon that “Authority” and not the constitution. The people delegate that authority which is really the peoples authority by electing representatives to take care of this stuff for them by exercising the peoples authority as delegated by the people for their will and desire. That was the way it was originally intended, and what makes our Constitution so unique (not another like it before or since then in this concept) so the people could maintain control of their respective governments in their “colonies” (states, by extension to today’s states as well) and their federal government. But things went wrong when the federal government back then said “Oh. lookie here, the constitution say ‘supremacy’ so yah us!” forcing the Framers to produce the Bill of Rights so that certain rights were specifically outlined to the government as “hands off”.
And its been screwed up ever since then with a constant battle between the Bill of Rights and the “supremacy” of the federal and states governments and the SCOTUS saying “yep, that supremacy exists”
This is where the concept of Alexander Hamilton’s “People get the government they deserve” comes from, the delegation of that authority by the people. Its the peoples responsibility to ensure that authority which is actually the peoples authority, is vested (delegated – and as extension of the peoples will and desire) in such a way that the peoples authority is always ensured and intact so they can control government and if they do not delegate that authority properly they deserve what they get.
Article VI never qualifies that laws must be constitutional, only that “Laws of the United States … made … under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.” – and for states they follow that basic principal as well because “Law of the Land” also applies to the states within the “Land” of the state with state law as well.
“Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States …”
Just to point out for clarification: Notice in Article VI that the “Constitution” and the “Laws of the United States” are separate things that need to be bought together with “, and…” in order to later in Article VI bring them together “under the Authority of the United States” which was assumed when written basically to be the responsibility of the people and to be the people.
“ It could be decided once and for all…”
Sorry- utter BS that this issue, or any other that is somehow contested will ever be decided “once and for all”. Roe v Wade, election laws, “racial” laws- nothing is ever decided once and for all.
If this were the case, the original 27 words of the Second Amendment would have already done it.
It seems convincing Gun-owning Americans of this fact is more difficult than just maintaining what we have left of 2A. Personally, I hope this battle is still taking place in 100 years. It’ll mean we still have some gun rights.
Get used to it- there have been movements in this nation almost from the ratification of the Constitution to limit or end almost the entire Bill of Rights and much of the original Articles. Hell, even SCOTUS scum like RBG rallied against our Constitution in favor of Krapistans like South Africa’s.
This is an ongoing battle. Hike up your big boy pants and join in…
Gun Control useful idiots running around DC are waving signs that say, “Gun Laws Save Lives” and “Gun Safety Saves Lives.” By omitting “Control” and using “Laws” Gun Control officials are clearly trying to cover Gun Control’s racist and nazi heritage. After all the keyword that defines and exposes their agenda is, “Control.” Those running the Gun Control Show see the Gun Sales and know the history of Gun Control is being exposed gradually and have no problem or no shame relabeling their poo for consumption.
Unfortunately some people are so fixated on no-brainer courtroom drama they did not even notice something a little different going on with those running around DC with signs that purposely omitted, “Control.” The signs did not change because of any effort from certain individuals on this forum who let me know in no uncertain ways I was annoyingly, “rhetorical” about the History of Gun Control. Rest assured those individuals had zip. nada, nothing whatsoever to do with seeing “Control” omitted from those signs.
This forum should write their members of congress and demand the 1968 Gun Control Act be ripped from the books. Base your demand on the fact that history shows there is little to no difference between Gun Control, slave shacks, nooses, sheets, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and other such atrocities. Note before another Civil War monument is moved based on its history it is much, much more fitting Gun Control is ripped from the books based on its confirmed history of rot.
“Base your demand on the fact that history shows there is little to no difference between Gun Control, slave shacks, nooses, sheets, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and other such atrocities”
but this will have no effect. see, everything you’ve listed here is defunct, but the ones pushing gun control push holodomors, gulags, and red stars.
which you well know, and seek to avoid mentioning. can’t have the conversation going THAT way, can we?
Nothing is defunct. There is no, repeat, none, difference between a red star and a swastika. Just because you favor the swastika doesn’t mean you’re any different than the hammer and sickle.
Equal evil is still evil.
“There is no, repeat, none, difference between a red star and a swastika”
Debbie W. thinks there’s a difference. and she’s right.
“Equal evil is still evil”
Debbie W. doesn’t think they’re equal. and she’s right.
(for the boolsheviks, you are the evil. you. you yourself. think about that.)
For you guys on the swatika side evil is based entirely on race, religion or a dozen other imagined reasons to hate.
I hope both sides consider me evil.
What we are stuck living with today is a spiders web of laws that overlap and contradict and people find themselves not know if they are doing something legally or not even though it seems like it should be the legal thing to do. Reciprocity may or may not be legal even though one has been vetted and permitted. People can find themselves facing severe felony charges without even knowing it. I know here in MA when I drive around I make sure I avoid the New York State border. The last time I looked I didn’t see anything in the second amendment that said that the right to keep and bear arms ends at the border of my state.
So yeah, all gun laws should go, the ATF should be disbanded since it seems the only they do today is go out on fishing expeditions look for the low hanging fruit for a quick conviction.
There should only be a handful of gun laws. Parental consent if you’re under 16 to buy a gun. If you’ve been convicted of a crime requiring jail time. Those are actual common sense gun laws.
jwm,
“There should only be a handful of gun laws.”
As you are acutely aware, that fails to advance the interests of the Ruling Class.
The author Ayn Rand stated the principle succinctly and eloquently in her book Atlas Shrugged:
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
That is why we have so many laws.
Well I disagree with your “If you’ve been convicted of a crime requiring jail time. ”
IMO, that would only be for murderers, rapists, bank robbers, kidnappers , Islamic and domestic terrorists (the real ones not the ones JB wants invented into being).
Many “crimes” are merely breaking unconstitutional laws and acts that should be legal and constitutional. Example: Drive into the wrong state with a gun in your car and you’re looking at 1-10 yrs in jail. Depending on the state. Buy a handgun with no state permit. Etc.
In my mind I wrote that differently than what I wrote on the comment. I meant that a person should only lose their gun rights while serving their sentence. No guns for folks in time out. They can have them back afterwards.
There can never, ever be no “common sense” derived from any agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide as deeply as Gun Control is. Such polite sounding “common sense” detours around crime and lands on your doorstep. You need to rethink a position that has side effects on the law abiding.
Already have enough nonsense Gun Laws such as carrying a Constitutional Right under a coat or outside the home is a, “crime.” After all the courtroom drama, after the smoke clears and at the end of the day it all boils down to…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
boolshevik. boolshevik thing.
Same, same.
“Same, same”
not to them. certainly not to Debbie W.
I will risk speaking for debbie here. I doubt she considers the commies any better or worse than you fascists. It’s just here in America we grew up on stories of fighting the evil nazis in ww2.
Her not using the commies as examples does not mean she supports them. You’re just butt hurt because she calls your side out.
This is common sense written in clear language, easily understood and no mention of a minimum age.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“A significant portion of the gun safety movement’s current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years,” Winkler added.”
It’s not ‘gun safety’, it’s GUN CONTROL. Stop ceding the language to the fascists, like my mentally-ill demented troll, doing nothing but masturbating furiously in his mother’s basement.
You’re SICK, little boy. Get the help you need, before it’s too late… 🙂
Geoff,
I cannot pass up the opportunity to bust your balls:
“It’s not ‘gun safety’, it’s GUN CONTROL. Stop ceding the language to the fascists …”
Isn’t the term “GUN CONTROL” also language which Progressives coined to subtly manipulate the masses? The proper term should be “civilian disarmament” because that is the actual goal of Progressives.
Apologies for busting your chops–I could not help myself!
Yes, you are indeed correct… 🙂
In real life Geoff is a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. He’s also never laid down with a woman. Sad!
“In real life Geoff is a person prohibited from possessing a firearm.”
Then why did Florida issue me a concealed carry permit, little boy?
This is what mental illness looks like, study it carefully.
Dance, troll. I order you to continue to make a horse’s ass out of yourself… 😉
I would venture a guess that “Gun Expert” is not much of an expert at much of anything but flapping his jaws.
And “civilian disarmament” is nothing more than commie speak for *Undermining The US Constitution and Bill of Rights*
some of these guys have no interest in getting laid…at least not with a woman…
What America has are too many would-be kings and queens. There are too many elected and appointed individuals assuming power and authority they don’t have. We have too many power hungry tyrants/dictators that think they are above the law.
They think they’re above the law because they are the law. The Special Counsel that pretend opposition like Lindsey Graham sold everyone on (like they were going to get to the bottom of Russia Collusion) went out of their way to lock up a peon over some inconsequential lie during an illegitimate investigation. That crime wouldn’t even exist without the false “investigation.”
Contrast that with both the FBI director and assistant director committing crimes for the purpose of covering up for the illegitimate investigation. What was their punishment? They were rewarded with book deals and speaking contracts for their service. The FBI lawyer that falsified documents got a slap on the wrist. Why didn’t he spend time in a jail cell? Democrats cheered when their heroes in positions of power sent peon Papadopoulos to jail. They hate equality. All they care about is power. To be fair, most people never knew the truth thanks to the propagandist media.
quote———-To be fair, most people never knew the truth thanks to the propagandist media.———quote
People who are not right wing Nazi’s like you Dud Brain call this “freedom of the press” which is a right in the U.S. and people like you are not going to ever be able to destroy freedom of the press as when Trump tried to do when he infested the Presidency. Its called reporting both sides of a controversial issue. Something Nazi’s like yourself would outlaw just as Hitler outlawed freedom of the press in Nazi Germany.
Except they didn’t report both sides of the issue. They pretended the Russia scam wasn’t a lie. Then when they were finished milking the story for all it was worth, they dropped it. Somehow they didn’t think the DOJ working with the Democrats (who were actually colluding with Russians) to push a false story on the American people was a story worth covering. Why is that? Why did the special counsel led by Mueller receive nonstop coverage, but the current special counsel isn’t a story worth mentioning unless they absolutely have to? The media isn’t covering it because they’re implicated in the scandal.
“you are not going to ever be able to destroy freedom of the press”
Once again, you aren’t talking to me. You’re replying to the voices in your head. I never said anything about destroying the freedom of the press.
to Dud Brain
quote————-Except they didn’t report both sides of the issue. They pretended the Russia scam wasn’t a lie. Then when they were finished milking the story for all it was worth, they dropped it———–quote
Except that statement shows how little you know about what is actually going on. Last night on the news they said they are indeed still investigating Trumps ties to the Russians.
quote—————Once again, you aren’t talking to me. You’re replying to the voices in your head. I never said anything about destroying the freedom of the press.———quote
You implied it so even a blind man could have read it and understood what you meant.
“Last night on the news they said they are indeed still investigating Trumps ties to the Russians.”
Of course they’re still “investigating.” They’ve only had, what, nearly six years now? So far, all we have are lies. The reason you’re seeing that news at this moment is because they want to counter the REAL news that someone was actually arrested in connection with the Russia Collusion Lie.
“Special counsel John Durham alleges key source lied to FBI about how he collected information about Trump and Russia, getting some of it from Democratic operative”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-analyst-igor-danchenko-arrested-in-connection-with-steele-dossier-11636040274
“You implied it so even a blind man could have read it and understood what you meant.”
It’s funny how you always pick up on these dog whistles and coded language that I don’t even realize I’m saying.
to Dud Brain
quote——————-It’s funny how you always pick up on these dog whistles and coded language that I don’t even realize I’m saying.————quote
Psychologists have long stated that racists like yourself do not even realize how demented they are. Adolf Hitler once said he was really a nice guy, but just misunderstood.
To Dud Brain
quote————-Of course they’re still “investigating.” They’ve only had, what, nearly six years now?————-quote
They are taking their time so that this Trump Nazi Hitlerite rat will not be able to escape justice and be exposed for the traitor that he is.
Dacian, the DUNCE, it seems you think that voicing opinion on the news pages is perfectly OK as long as it is the socialist viewpoint. Who is “investigating Trump’s ties to the Russian? Your nonsense about Trump’s Russian ties has been debunked so many times, I’ve lost count.
Socialists have always been proponents of a “free press” as long as it presents their point of view exclusively.
Me: The press should be honest. Oh, and stop putting words in my mouth.
lil’ d: NAZI RACIST!!!
And let’s keep track of the age-old penalty for what those high government officials did, immediate execution. They were attempting a coup, and when a coup fails, its leaders do not see another sunrise. For at least 500 years, probably much longer.
Garland has cut Durham’s funding…but he still continues to pursue this investigation…
“They think they’re above the law because they are the law”
you mean they define the law. certainly so.
but the ones behind this don’t believe they are above the law, rather they believe they themselves are the law. that the universe exists for them. that YOU exist for them, and that you’re evil if you don’t so behave.
To the Supreme Court they don’t care about how much gun control there is. If they thought there are too many gun control laws they would have taken all the other cases.
Their decision will be so narrow it will be meaningless with no teeth. Or they side with the state.
My guess is thin like anorexic, Somali, runway model thin. But I hope not.
or New York will just back off and amend their laws somewhat…”may issue” cannot be allowed to be interpreted as never issue…
Code for: Pack the courts or there will be blood in the streets.
“there will be blood in the streets”
inevitable. communism has murdered 100,000,000 world wide so far, and they’re just getting started.
Let’s not start counting chickens yet. They won’t be hatching for months.
We can hope that the Court decides this case so there is little doubt about the 2nd Amendment.
Yes rational is the key word
I sincerely hope Winkler had judged the situation correctly and not misjudged it out of a hope that the Supremes won’t deny citizens the rights in the Second Amendment. This group of justices has delivered one or two unpleasant surprises. I hope that all of us 2A supporters don’t get another one.
Firearms are as much of a threat to the absolute dictatorial power of the Conservatives on the courts as they are to the Liberal justices. Conservative Justices speak a good line of pro-gun bullshit but do not look for them ever to take away State Laws that restrict semi-auto weapons or high capacity magazines. Its just not ever going to happen when you look at their past corrupt record of blessing such laws.
never say never…that “common use” terminology is ripe for a clarification….
Go back to the Carpathians and jump in the Black Sea.
Dacian, you have it absolutely backwards. It’s you Socialists who are the dictatorial people. Those justices you refer to as “liberal” are not “liberal” at all. They are socialists. The only true Liberals are the founding fathers and your today’s Conservatives. They are for big government and control of the populace. They are for the murder of the unborn. They are for stripping the law abiding citizens of their right to self defense with firearms which is one of the corner stones of the Constitution. It is not “dictatorial” to adhere to the written word of the Constitution. In spite of what you Socialists think the Constitution is NOT a “live breathing document”. For your edification? Paper can’t breath.
I wouldn’t get overly optimistic, I’m more of a wait and see kind of guy I know what can go wrong!
SCOTUS is always looking for a way to stab us in the back. The “conservative super majority”. What a joke.
Winkler was one of the early advocates hired as expert witnesses in California litigation regarding the may issue laws. He was the one who would file a declaration stating that “more guns means more gun crime.” It never bothered him that there was then (and is now) no unbiased research supporting this claim; it is just “common sense” and supported the decisions of the last several sheriffs of LA County to have a virtual no issue CCW policy.
The Second Amendment is one of the shortest Amendments to the Bill of Rights. It’s pretty simple: ‘…….The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’. What part of that don’t they understand?
how ’bout the “well-regulated militia” part?
You guys believe that goose stepping in unison is the only way to go. You believe that the state has the right to regulate every minute of your life. You look forward to it. You want only those you consider ‘pure’ and ‘reliable’ enough to be armed.
Sorry, dude. But this country was built on individual, not group, rights.
there is no militia requirement…all it says it can only be possible to form one if the citizens possess arms…one is a prerequisite for the other…..
” how ’bout the “well-regulated militia” part? ”
My own personal take on that is the militia is what needs to be regulated, not the arms they might be carrying. A regulated militia is one that has a defined objective, a chain of command, and rules of engagement. An unregulated militia has none of these elements and is nothing more than a mob (armed or unarmed — see Jan 6 for an example), something that scared the pants off the Framers. There is nothing in the 2A that justifies the regulation of firearms in any manner. It only justifies the regulation of militias.
Even one single gun law is too many.
We only need the one we have, that’s supposed to regulate the government not the people or their guns.
Repeal the NFA and the 1968 GCA and the Hughes Amendment from FOPA, and all other Federal and State gun control laws. THEY DON’T STOP CRIMINALS from getting guns.
There should be NO restrictions on gun ownership except for those convicted of a violent crime with firearms.
Not that it would ever happen. Nobody challenged the 1934 NFA in Court because nobody knew about it.
网课代修 1
Comments are closed.