Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

Because they are private entities, owned and operated by private citizens

 

Only in your bizarre attempted analogue

 

This is true, it's the Left's deliberate attempts to unconstitutionally regulate guns that is building the case law that clarifies our inherent right to keep and carry fire arms for self defense.

Majority Of Republicans, Independents Fear Left Will Attempt To Illegitimately Abuse Of ‘Red Flag’ Laws.

The vile idiots and clowns that claimed that school board moms are terrorists? Of course these foul thugs will.

​

"52.3% of Independents “believe that 'red flag' gun control laws that are designed to temporarily take guns away from individuals have the potential to be abused by local authorities and government officials to disarm their political opponents and/or citizens who disagree with them.”"

 

That is why we have a Supreme Court and they have ruled that people have a right to carry a gun for self defense. A right denied by liberals who claim to be for the people.

 

So then all Constitutional rights can be regulated, including the Second Amendment, thusly all this rhetoric over any gun regulation violating the Second Amendment is bogus

It is not the left who is constantly taking it to Court, and the SCOTUS we have today isn't a real SCOTUS, it is a 100% political SCOTUS, has been that way ever since Mitch made appointment to the Court a majority vote, you own the Senate you own the SCOTUS, what they decide today will more than likely be overturned in the future

 

And yet after viewing the world common sense tells anyone that more guns does not equate to a safer country, in fact, it proves the exact opposite, those that refuse to learn from what is around them are doomed by their selfish obstinance

 

There is none. Which is why I said "A law that does not allow incitement of violence does not violate the Right to Free Speech because violence is not a right protected." Did you miss that part of my post?

Strawman argument. The Supreme Court did not rule that you can carry (speak) anywhere at anytime. They said that you can carry (speak) anywhere in the general public. Schools are not open to the general public (hence why you can't bust into a school and start using a bullhorn to promote <insert whatever subject here>). Private businesses are not the general public (hence why you can't bust into a private business and start using a bullhorn to promote <insert whatever subject here>...well, you can but you can be thrown out and trespassed). Courthouses are not the general public (hence why you can't bust into a courthouse and start using a bullhorn to promote <insert whatever subject here>). Police stations are not the general public (hence why you can't bust into a police station and start using a bullhorn to promote <insert whatever subject here>). There are MANY things which are not considered the general public. However, sidewalks, and parks ARE considered as being open to the general public. The government can no more stop you from exercising your free speech in the general public than it can restrict your right to carry for self defense. That is what was decided. It made carrying a gun for self defense equal to your right to free speech.

 

And what are those exceptions based upon?

 

Exactly so. We have seen over and over here on PF the usual suspects claim that people who voted for Trump are insane. And of course insane people need their guns taken away. It seems very predictable that liberals will use red flag laws to target political opposition.

 

Right, according to "the Central Square," whatever the hell that is

 

Can you explain why you believe this is a rational and logical comparison?

A prefatory clause is an intro. There is a lot of history behind the second amendment. It was borrowed from other laws of the era (like English common law). Scalia properly interpreted the historical context. It is Breyer in that dissent and in his current dissent who relies on irrelevant data points and misinterpreting small pieces of historical context to fulfill his political opinion. The second amendment isn't binary. It says multiple things. Pretending otherwise is stupid. Because a militia is so important, the government cannot take away the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms. The government can't put law abiding citizens in jail for carrying a firearm. That's the whole point of the second amendment. If the militia (or anyone) ever needs to fight an enemy, foreign or domestic, they do not need to ask permission from their government to carry weapons.

 

Exactly, so your point about planes was a useless strawman at best.

 

We don't have a Supreme Court, we have a political Court, once again, Mitch gave us that when he made appointment to the Court a majority vote, you control the Senate, you own the Court, and again, once again, no right is absolute, they all can be regulated, a fact the right doesn't want to admit is true

 

You'd have to ask Thomas, he wrote the majority opinion which included exceptions, but he, they, don't know, that was their escape clause incase the next mass shooting can be traced back to this decision

 

Which shows you are most likely also one of those who believe that the Government is coming to confiscate all your guns

 

You're deflecting. What are the exceptions to Rights? When do you not have a Right to Free Speech? When do you not have a Right to the Free Exercise of Religion? When do you not have a Right to Freedom of the Press? The answer to all of those can be boiled down to one phrase.

 

The object of freedom is not safety dear.

 

Sure, it is a prefatory clause clearly listing the conditions of the operative clause, really not that difficult

Scalia and his sophomoric "originalism" is absurd, he has no more understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers, the "historical context," than the next guy, all just a deflection to rationalize what he always intended to do. And your explanation of the militia etc has been one floating forever, not new, and also isn't relevant, point being no one understood the prefatory clause, two hundred years of SCOTUS unable to do so proves the point

 

Ah, yes, the rest of the world must clearly be doing something wrong when they have 96% of the population, but 10% of the world's school shootings. Not! We should look to the rest of the world to get hints about how to solve this problem, not to American gun lovers. Unfortunately, the RW SC court is doing the exact opposite.

What gall NY State has, to require registration for concealed carry. Can't have that in gun-loving RW world, that's too much of a burden for poor gun nuts. They are under so much oppression from the government, it's unspeakable. But, continue hiding behind the "constitution", it doesn't make your anti-social, lax gun policies any better and any more comforting for people who lose loved ones every day to the prevalent gun violence. What a stupid country.

Ok, rant over.

 

Really?

I think you leaned in junior high that no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, that if you want to hold a parade, you have to file a permit, that one can't conduct a religions service anywhere and anytime they want, that libel laws prevent the press from printing anything they want regarding others, etc

All Constitutional rights anywhere listed in the Constitution can, and have always been, regulated

 

It is when it threatens others safety, how can one be free when they can't attend church, school, go bowling, to the movies, a spa, club, mall, grocery store, concert, even just hanging in the parking lot, without the fear of being shot?

 

So you believe Scalia doesn't understand history and the intent of the Founding Fathers. But, you believe that the Founding Fathers, who just fought a civil war against an oppressive government, wrote the second amendment with the intent of an oppressive government being able to disarm them? Is this your final answer? Are you sure you wouldn't like to phone a friend?

 

No more than others, especially "the intent of the Founding Fathers"

And once again, you, nor anyone, knows what they meant by militia, given that at the time there was no standing army others believe that the Founders wanted the citizenry to maintain weapons so that they could be ready to fight incase the new country suddenly had to got to war again, one view is as credible as the other

 

You're still deflecting. Answer the question. What are the exceptions to Rights? Why can't you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (you actually can btw.)? Why is a permit required to hold a parade? Why can't you hold a religious service anywhere and anytime? Why are there libel laws?

What is the exception common in ALL of those?

 

Yeah...its not like we don't have historical documents to draw from. Are you really trying to claim that if I write a document saying that I hate the color pink that future historians aren't going to be able to tell that I hate the color pink?