|
So if enough of start casually carrying full auto weapons, the ban will be unconstitutional
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Originalism lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Devorum posted:There's no constitutional right to concealed carry, and no one would have argued otherwise prior to the NRA revising 2A history over the last 50 years. Americans have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, whether its open or concealed is up to the bearer. Bel Shazar posted:What good reasons are those at this point? To enshrine rights so that they can't easily be changed by a small majority! Sub Par posted:I understand and disagree with this but the main point to make is that this case isn't just about CCW. It's about the types of restrictions government can place on gun ownership and use generally and which tests should be used to determine whether those restrictions are valid. CCW is the context of this particular case, but the whole point here is to abstract out some principles. That's why the stats Breyer is quoting are germane to his argument. The state can still put requirements on CCW, but it just has to be fairly applied to everyone so that all citizens have rights. If this case was about the state trying to ban AR-15s or all handguns then maybe Breyer's stats on gun violence would be relevant, but not here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
How long is it going to take before someone brings a case to the court that machine guns are a constitutionally guaranteed right based on this jurisprudence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Hand grenades existed in wig-and-stocking times, it should be legal to sell 'em next to the chicken wings and carry them on the sidewalk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
rscott posted:How long is it going to take before someone brings a case to the court that machine guns are a constitutionally guaranteed right based on this jurisprudence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm wondering how they engage with stuff like the Hughes Amendment now. It seems like they've got the votes to start chipping away at the list of presumptively constitutional restrictions that Scalia gave in Heller. (Restrictions on carrying "Dangerous and unusual" weapons were one of those. So were concealed carry restrictions.)Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can still put requirements on CCW, but it just has to be fairly applied to everyone so that all citizens have rights. If this case was about the state trying to ban AR-15s or all handguns then maybe Breyer's stats on gun violence would be relevant, but not here. You are making the argument you want to make and not responding to the argument others are making. The part I bolded may be your preferred policy outcome, but it is not at all the test that Thomas gives for the constitutionality of a restriction on firearms in the opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:To enshrine rights so that they can't easily be changed by a small majority! 5 people are about to strip rights away from half the population, the constitution isn't worth poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:To enshrine rights so that they can't easily be changed by a small majority! Yet, the Republicans on SCOTUS are about to remove abortion rights. How is that not a minority population changing rights? Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:5 people are about to strip rights away from half the population, the constitution isn't worth poo poo. Six people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Six people. Oh sorry I thought Roberts was dissenting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Six people. Bel Shazar posted:Oh sorry I thought Roberts was dissenting. It's unknown at this time if Roberts is or is not dissenting, but even if he does dissent his preferred opinion would also pretty much kill abortion rights it would just do so slightly less blatantly (it would effectively be "you can put basically any level of restrictions on abortion as long as it isn't technically entirely illegal")
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Americans have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, whether its open or concealed is up to the bearer. This is untrue in both text and in practice. Laws against concealed weapons have a long history, including in America under the people who wrote the 2A. Pure NRA revisionism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Yeah, I'm wondering how they engage with stuff like the Hughes Amendment now. It seems like they've got the votes to start chipping away at the list of presumptively constitutional restrictions that Scalia gave in Heller. (Restrictions on carrying "Dangerous and unusual" weapons were one of those. So were concealed carry restrictions.) All of the justices stated that restrictions, regulation and licensing is allowed; Kav and Roberts specifically concurred in a separate opinion to reiterate that fact. They just need to be objectively applied to everyone. Other impacts from future cases need to be judged on a case by case basis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:All of the justices stated that restrictions, regulation and licensing is allowed; Kav and Roberts specifically concurred in a separate opinion to reiterate that fact. They just need to be objectively applied to everyone. Other impacts from future cases need to be judged on a case by case basis. Neofeudalist opinion isn't something to build your worldview upon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:All of the justices stated that restrictions, regulation and licensing is allowed; Kav and Roberts specifically concurred in a separate opinion to reiterate that fact. They just need to be objectively applied to everyone. Other impacts from future cases need to be judged on a case by case basis. Yes we know you're pretending to be stupid and not actually understanding the actual outcome of opinion. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1539983073806270471
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
What is the history and tradition of Supreme Court rulings regarding black people having rights white men were bound to respect Clarence
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Republicans haven't won the popular vote in 30 years. 2004. I think the stat you mean is "have only once".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Since it's relevant to the conversation, here's the chunk of the Heller syllabus where it summarizes what restrictions are presumptively constitutional:quote:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Of note here for purposes of things like the Hughes Amendment, possession is distinguished here from carrying, and manufacture is not the same thing as commercial sale. (e: while the syllabus doesn't explicitly say these are presumptively lawful, Scalia puts that in a footnote later on.) Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:All of the justices stated that restrictions, regulation and licensing is allowed; Kav and Roberts specifically concurred in a separate opinion to reiterate that fact. They just need to be objectively applied to everyone. Other impacts from future cases need to be judged on a case by case basis. You still didn't reply to what I said, which is that while the bolded part may be your preferred outcome, it is not the test that Thomas indicates is used to evaluate the constitutionality of a restriction on firearms. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Republicans haven't won the popular vote in 30 years. Abortion has majority support. You misunderstand. Majorities changing rights is bad, but so long as less than 50% of the population supports the change it’s fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
Stickman posted:You misunderstand. Majorities changing rights is bad, but so long as less than 50% of the population supports the change it’s fine. Only one type of minority matters (it's the rich, even the evangelicals are just useful idiots)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
So, objectively, they struck down may issue and increased the level of scrutiny on 2A violations. Not far enough, but about what I expected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Amendment II Can you quote the part that mentions them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Can you quote the part that mentions them? quote: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. keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. Bel Shazar posted:5 people are about to strip rights away from half the population, the constitution isn't worth poo poo. And realistically, women in those states are still going to have abortions. The meds are easy to obtain, and travel is cheap. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The meds are easy to obtain, and travel is cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. Yes, the court is about to take the right away from women and turn it over to male dominated state legislatures. I feel like you are trying to disagree with me and instead you confirmed my statement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:5 people are about to strip rights away from half the population, the constitution isn't worth poo poo. It's worth remembering that the Supreme Court are the ones who created that right in the first place. Same goes for things like Bivens and Miranda. Relying too heavily on the courts to create policy was going to backfire sooner or later, and the right spent the last fifty years actively working to take over the judicial branches precisely because the courts were having such a huge impact on policy. Proust Malone posted:What is the history and tradition of Supreme Court rulings regarding black people having rights white men were bound to respect Clarence Pretty bad, which is part of why Congress amended the Constitution to (among other things) overturn a particularly bad Supreme Court ruling. They weren't bound to just sit back and take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:The meds are easy to obtain, and travel is cheap. This is a patently absurd statement. The only reason why the meds are easy to obtain is due to volunteer organizations shipping them all over the country, in a move that several states are pushing to make illegal. And travel is *very* expensive for low income people. The cheaper the method the longer it takes, which is lost hours or lost jobs in income they cannot afford. This is the whole point of the access question of abortion, *because* it is an unreasonable burden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:So, objectively, they struck down may issue and increased the level of scrutiny on 2A violations. Not far enough, but about what I expected. I sincerely want to know what an opinion that went "far enough" would look like. States can't pass laws containing the word "gun"? This isn't a typical Roberts wishy-washy chipping away at rights kind of decision. It's a full-throated win for the NRA and its ilk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's worth remembering that the Supreme Court are the ones who created that right in the first place. Same goes for things like Bivens and Miranda. Relying too heavily on the courts to create policy was going to backfire sooner or later, and the right spent the last fifty years actively working to take over the judicial branches precisely because the courts were having such a huge impact on policy. The 9th amendment and the history of abortion suggest that the court only confirmed what already existed and stopped the government from infringing on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Even if you believe the assumption that abortion drugs are easy to get, there is still the risk of any women who is taking the drug being subject to criminal penalties, no matter how remote the possibility of them getting caught actually is. Government's shouldn't strip and criminalise essential reproductive rights and choices from people. That's not even counting the privacy violation of a women being investigated for having a miscarriage or whatever. I wouldn't even say that criminal penalties area remote risk at this point, who knows how vigilant some of these crazy right wing state governments will be in enforcing these new laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's worth remembering that the Supreme Court are the ones who created that right in the first place. Same goes for things like Bivens and Miranda. quote:Relying too heavily on the courts to create policy was going to backfire sooner or later, and the right spent the last fifty years actively working to take over the judicial branches precisely because the courts were having such a huge impact on policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Women are already being tried for murder for miscarriages. The cases are only sometimes dropped
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Even if you believe the assumption that abortion drugs are easy to get, there is still the risk of any women who is taking the drug being subject to criminal penalties, no matter how remote the possibility of them getting caught actually is. Government's shouldn't strip and criminalise essential reproductive rights and choices from people. That's not even counting the privacy violation of a women being investigated for having a miscarriage or whatever. It is inevitable at this point that a red state demands extradition of a blue state resident who obtained or facilitated an abortion, and there's a nonzero chance the court will rule that this must happen. Who knows where we go from there but none of the options are good
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:
You might want to double check that one because that's only for those with the privilege of doing so. Lot of folks can't afford to travel out of state or take the time off. This isn't even getting into the laws around suing people for having abortions when others in the family do not approve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. You know you can just say that you believe that women having access to reproductive care is bad and should be banned. Cheerleading states criminalizing care and then turning around and pretending it’s okay because they can just surmount the barriers that you believe are correctly placed to prevent the thing you think should be illegal is just rank patronizing bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Travel is extremely cheap in the us - in many countries, such as in Europe, gas is north of $10 a gallon. Saying travel in the us is too expensive is an insanely privileged take. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:keep is own/possess and bear means carry. Its a complicated sentence. You could easily rule that as long as someone is able to bear arms of some kind, their rights are protected. Their right to a gun is nowhere mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Travel is extremely cheap in the us - in many countries, such as in Europe, gas is north of $10 a gallon. Saying travel in the us is too expensive is an insanely privileged take. Hmmm yes I'm sure that's the only difference.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
ellasmith posted:Travel is extremely cheap in the us - in many countries, such as in Europe, gas is north of $10 a gallon. Saying travel in the us is too expensive is an insanely privileged take. The gas to travel in the US is very cheap but the time to travel is very expensive. Often more than someone can afford, especially if they have to travel to another state. And that's not even counting that their home state may take measures specifically intended to stop pregnant people from traveling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 20:33
|
|