what part of incorporation do you have such hard time understanding? How does licensing meet the test established in Bruen? tell me if it even meets a rational basis standard-to me it does not.
I'm afraid-- actually, not at all, really-- that I don't spend a great deal of my time, memorizing the names of court cases, which deal specifically with 2nd Amendment rights. However, I DO recall hearing about the ruling, to which I alluded. As I'd said, with a bit less certainty, I think it may even have been Scalia, who wrote the opinion. So it sounds, to me, like somebody is a bit stuck in the past, and isn't keeping, at all, up to date on this.
is that sort of a concession? tell us why licensing does a damn thing in actually promoting public safety
Scalia wrote Heller, which I quoted. I do spend a lot of my time memorizing the names and details of court cases, as I want to be able to debate them intelligently. So, Bruen overturned Bianchi v Frosh, Rigby v Jennings, RMGO v Town of Superior, Duncan v Bonta, etc.
Your reply, which I answered, was this: Turtledude said: ↑ not at a federal level. and ever since FDR **** all over the tenth amendment, the Supreme court has made obvious errors when it comes to the tenth and second amendments. where did the federal government properly obtain the power to require licensing? Now I think your main point, above, has to do with the difference between state & federal laws. You, apparently, think it has to do with "incorporation," and something called, "Bruen," neither of which words, do I see, in your post. So tell me, which one of us is speaking in tongues? If those are the relevant things, then it appears that your post, which I had actually been answering, was a flaming turd; or else it was so extremely poorly explained, that the writer should hang is head, in shame, not scold a replier, over things that he himself had either neglected to explain, or did not mention, at all. Gun rights, is not at the center of my life, Turtledude. It is ridiculous, for you to assume that I have all your background knowledge, on Court decisions. I was merely giving a logical reply, to what you had written. If you prefer not to discuss the subject, with anyone who is not tantamount to a legal scholar on this specific issue, that is fine with me; I much prefer that, to the direction in which the tone of your response, is heading.
The "someone," was a playful way of referencing Rucker. So, no: it was not a concession, at all. I put in my 2¢, about the topic of this thread-- novel idea, right? Since you know so much about this topic, it doesn't seem like I should need to explain to you, that this case had nothing materially to do with "licensing." In case you have already forgotten, it was you who had brought that up. I had merely noted, that this showed a fundamental difference in our perspectives, on gun rights, such that it should not be expected for us to see eye to eye, on the issue. Just curious-- did you have a completely different impression, of that beginning part, of this conversation? Because it makes no sense to me, why-- appropriate of nothing, really-- you seem to be wanting to debate me, over gun licensing (again: not this thread's subject).
Dude, the case you're alluding to that you maybe heard about one time and can't be bothered to recall specifically? That's Heller, and the whoever told you Scalia said licensing was ok either lied or didn't understand the case. The case was quoted for you. If you have another citation, provide it or stop claiming it exists. It's YOUR claim, YOU are required under the rules to back it up.
No one is speaking in tongues, rather instead we're discussing basic facts and law surrounding the OP. If you don't understand or wish to discuss the jurisprudence, then leave as that is what the OP is about. You want to have an opinion? First read Heller v DC, Chicago v McDonald and NYSR&P v Bruen. These are the controlling cases for the 2nd amendment. Bruen especially should be read because it clarifies the test applicable to 2nd amendment questions that all statutes or orders must pass: IE there must be a historic law that is a fair analog of the provision being tested during the time of the passage of the bill of rights. The reasoning being if the founders allowed it after passage of the bill of rights it must not be an 'infringement'.
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...Vsi4be7xGcpwhnPJ5uqT0m_oeVpX7JiDutmA3dyWaWt-w Looks like there's even more action stemming from Bruen.
Judge Throws Out Fed Law Against Guns With Serial Numbers Removed 'In a move that already has gun-control enthusiasts clutching their pearls, a judge on Wednesday ruled that a federal law barring possession of a gun with a removed serial number is unconstitutional.' Good
I don't believe either the 1934 NFA or the Hughes Amendment can survive a proper application of the Bruen standard
Basically nothing can except for no weapons at polling places or courthouses or actually in the jails themselves.
One, I think the law pre-dated Charlie Baker. Two, Baker is a squish. He'd be a Democrat in most places, and a LIBERAL Democrat in probably 40 states. Three, he doesn't "run" anything. He is a near-powerless figurehead, because he cannot sustain a veto. Democrat supermajority for decades. That's wrong...Baker doesn't have to sign anything, because he cannot sustain a veto.