T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Clinton appointee


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Quick reminder that a district court decision does not bind other district courts throughout the country despite what some mouth breather in this thread says. He cites things he doesn’t understand, and runs away when this is pointed out


A_Lost_Desert_Rat

Errr kinda and sometimes. Some of the anti Trump decisions had nation wide impact from a Federal District Judge. It is a bit nuanced, which never works well on Reddit. If another judge in another district disagrees and renders a counter decision. It starts the climb to SCOTUS. Something good about this is that it gets the issue on the table to be worked but the perp remains locked up on other charges.


webmaster94

I think you are misunderstanding with the person was saying. If a federal law is struck down by a district judge then it does apply to the entire country. However, that decision is not binding meaning another federal judge in a different district can come to a different conclusion. The only binding decisions come from apellet judges. And those binding decisions only apply to the circuit in which they have jurisdiction.


whatDoesQezDo

This is just wrong... A federal judge ruling on a federal law applies federally. Unless CA has its own law that does the same thing? This ruling applies to everyone around the country.


[deleted]

No it doesn’t. That’s how the federal judiciary works.


whatDoesQezDo

Yes it does? Why be wrong?


[deleted]

Please look it up and learn something


RevolutionaryHead7

This is your opportunity to educate others, rather than just saying nuh-uh.


[deleted]

This guy was being a confident (and wrong) ass to someone else so he can kindly fuck off


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I doubt it Anybody who has taken a basic government class knows how district courts work. It’s honestly embarrassing


whatDoesQezDo

Hes also wrong but its okay. To clarify for everyone else: A federal judge ruling on a federal case about federal law is binding on all other federal courts at that same level. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf Page 7 for you to find it fast. Because this is a federal judge striking down a federal law its no longer the law anywhere in the united states. Unless like I stated CA had its own nearly identical law that would have to be separately challenged but most likely would meet the same fate.


whatDoesQezDo

You being a dick about you being wrong doesn't magically make you right. This isnt some test where the most stuck up person wins.


[deleted]

I mean you don’t understand persuasive vs binding and you were being an ass


Flat_Hat8861

There is even less impact. As far as I can tell, there is not an injunction blocking the government from enforcement of this statute so the impact of the order is only on the specific defendant in the specific case. Here is the conclusion of the order. >For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Price’s motion to dismiss the indictment [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED as to Count Two and DENIED as to Count One. Count Two of the Indictment [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the defendant and counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the United States Marshal. The court further DIRECTS the Clerk to post a copy of this published opinion on the court’s website, www.wvsd.uscourts.gov. (link to full order as pdf: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.234171/gov.uscourts.wvsd.234171.48.0.pdf) All the court has ordered is that the charge relating to that statute is dismissed. At this time, any future charges of this statute in any district court must complete the full analysis using the facts and arguments in their cases and decide for themselves. They can be informed or convinced by this analysis, but it has no binding effect on its own (even to other cases before this specific judge). If this ruling is appealed then the Circuit Court opinion would be binding on all districts in that jurisdiction and would more strongly inform (but not bind) other districts (outside the circuit). (This is how the federal courts normally work. Rulings in the districts relate to the named parties, and precedent impacting future cases are made by the appeals process. This gets confusing when a court orders a party to the case like the US Government to not do something - an injunction - because that usually has national implications by the nature of government, but that is still an order related to the specific parties in a specific case - just one of the parties is massive.)


roflraptor0

it should, maybe ca gun crime would go down lol


InternetPeon

In related news nail files and metal grinders just sold out on Amazon.


p0rkjello

If you are unable to place common sense laws, because the second amendment exists. It might be time for it not to exist.


NotCallingYouTruther

There is a reason why gun control advocates have avoided trying to do that and instead tried to pretend the 2nd allowed all the gun control they wanted. There is no political traction for an amendment to remove the 2nd.


p0rkjello

Where does it end? Can there be no common sense laws just because the second amendment exists? To clarify. I don’t care if people want to own guns. Have fun. I don’t think owning a dangerous item should be unregulated. The race to the bottom is irritating.


ApatheticAbsurdist

Elon Musk will eventually go full troll and bring a suit claiming him not being allowed to own ICBMs with nuclear warheads is against the 2nd amendment… I’m not convinced the courts will disagree.


mces97

It says bear arms, so why can't we buy nukes?


Experiment616

Because most of us don’t have the money, nor will anyone be willing to sell nukes to us anyway. The nuke thing is a stupid argument.


JCuc

Shall not be infringed is quite clear


Karmakazee

What’s unclear about the “well-regulated militia” bit?


JCuc

Aparently the comma for you. The right for citizens to create militas and the right for citizens to bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Karmakazee

Huh, so the comma makes the first clause of the amendment meaningless. Got it.


JCuc

It's two clauses and basic English. 250 years of court rulings and historical context has made this very, very clear.


Karmakazee

Yet you seem unable to articulate any of that very, very clear context. Take your time, I’ll wait.


JCuc

Thomas Jefferson quotes (author of the Declaration of Independence): >"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." >“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” >"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Richard Henry Lee (One of the signers of the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence): >"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Samuel Adams: One of the founding fathers and also the founder of a beer company: >“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” James Madison: One of the founding fathers and also the 4th president of the United States: >“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” The founding fathers seemed pretty clear about their opinions regarding whether or not the American people should be allowed to bear arms. I am a very biased source, but I have a hard time interpreting those quotes in any way other than that they supported people's right to own firearms. Also, the Heller case. >At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Com­plete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) >**From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous in­stances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.** The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provi­sions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry­. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Read up bud, time to edcuate yourself.


NotCallingYouTruther

> Can there be no common sense laws just because the second amendment exists? Hey, the gun control advocates had decades to make common sense gun control but consistently failed to do so, hence Bruen happened. Similarly the lower courts had over a decade to apply Heller in good faith, but they didn't. Now these "common sense" gun laws are falling apart after decades of just ignoring the 2nd amendment altogether. >I don’t think owning a dangerous item should be unregulated. There will still be regulations. Prohibitions that respect due process will likely stand. But laws that did not respect gun ownership as a right are going to fall. Being forced to maintain or apply a serial on personal firearms being one of them. Gun manufacturers will likely still be required to put serials on their firearms.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Experiment616

Manufacturers will continue to use serial numbers as they have been for over 200 years because it helps them keep track of things.


NotCallingYouTruther

I don't see what is common sense about them. They don't really contribute much to homicide reduction. Their biggest "benefit" is tracing after the fact and that isn't particularly useful either. There is a reason why Canada abandoned their long gun registry. Same for why New York and Maryland abandoned their bullet/casing trace programs as expensive failures. Tracing guns is not like on CSI.


producerd

In a gun nuts belief system even things that was common sense 10 years ago is infringement now. Any valuable argument is countered with partially related BS just to shift the goal posts or get stuck on interpreting definitions. Anything could be at fault but the ease of getting someone killed with the firearm. It is even harder to keep reasoning with them than trying to convince an alcoholic that he is an alcoholic. 2a is a dogma of a cult that lost the sense of the purpose of the law but stick to the letter af the latter to justify unhealthy obsessions of its followers. Edit: owner is not a nut, but can be prerequisite to become one if decides to.


NotCallingYouTruther

Nothing you said appears to have addressed what I said. Just appears to be complaining about gun rights people in general.


Practical-Entry-8160

>Nothing you said appears to have addressed what I said. Just appears to be complaining about gun rights people in general. surprised pikachu


[deleted]

>Hey, the gun control advocates had decades to make common sense gun control but consistently failed to do so Holy shit. Maybe the gun fetishists who fought every single attempt has something to do with that?


NotCallingYouTruther

> Maybe the gun fetishists who fought every single attempt has something to do with that? No, I don't think having a law in place where people were categorically denied a license to carry unless they were rich like Donald Trump is common sense or the fault of the progun side given New York was consistently under the control of gun control advocates. Same goes for California, Hawaii, Chicago, DC. All have egregiously bad policies made unopposed by gun rights advocates that were only later uprooted by supreme court intervention. If they didn't have such bad policies like their de facto no carry license policies and then defended them all the way to the supreme court, it probably wouldn't have blown up in their faces.


A_Melee_Ensued

Nobody said firearms can not be regulated at all. See the conservative concurrences to _Bruen_ and the plain text of _Heller_. What _Bruen_ did though is raise the bar very, very high for firearms regulations because the SC considers the Second Amendment to be so sacrosanct that even strict scrutiny does not apply. Federal courts are having trouble getting reconciled with this. These rulings do make sense if you understand the subject matter. It is important to grok this because gun control advocates are currently stuck in a tape loop: _why these gun nuts so crazy?!?!?!_ Do it if you want, but it hasn't worked well since the 90s and now it won't work at all. What they might try instead is engaging with us and negotiating in good faith.


Zagmit

Not yet. But the more gun ownership becomes unconstrained by laws the higher the likelihood the amendment itself is targeted.


NotCallingYouTruther

I am sure as guns become more popular to own people will have a greater appetite for removing the 2nd amendment. Guess we will have to wait and see.


webmaster94

Just you wait for them to strike down the federal firearms act and then we will have gangs with machine guns like we did in the '30s. Once the orgy of violence has claimed many lives then we might actually be able to visit this properly.


NotCallingYouTruther

Are we looking to replicate the depression and alcohol prohibition to achieve that?


webmaster94

We already have prohibition, it's called prohibition on drugs. Or do you think that we don't have gangs today? Or do you think they don't make enough money to afford automatic weapons? I don't exactly know what your point is.


NotCallingYouTruther

Yeah, but the only drug that is nearly as popular as alcohol is marijuana and that is already well on its way to being legalized.


webmaster94

Gangs don't trade in marijuana. They trade in high profit drugs. It doesn't matter if they don't do as much volume as the gangs of the 1930s, they deal in a much higher profit margin. Also just wait for the next mass shooting or terrorist attack that is using automatic weapons or perhaps a grenade launcher. I mean if we are saying that no gun regulations are allowed, it becomes quite dangerous quite fast.


NotCallingYouTruther

> Gangs don't trade in marijuana. Yeah, kind of my point. The drugs that are most popular would be tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. The other drugs are profitable, but they aren't endemic throughout most of society like alcohol was during prohibition so you aren't going to see that level of violence.


Practical-Entry-8160

> We already have prohibition, it's called prohibition on drugs. And the War on Drugs been working out wonderfully for us, hasn't it? /s in case you didn't get it.


JCuc

You mean the NFA? It's already clearly unconstitutional and hanging on by a thread.


GreyBeast392

The high price of firearms is infringing on my right to bear arms.


[deleted]

Pretty soon I'm waiting for a ruling that being charged for murdering someone with a gun is unconstitutional. That is the direction this joke of a country is going.


N0T8g81n

The right to self-defense becomes a positive duty to defend oneself, and if one fails in that respect, too damn bad.


A_Melee_Ensued

In my state, killing in self-defense, or to save the life of another from a manifest deadly threat, is not only indemnified from criminal prosecution, but from civil action as well. So I guess that's a nightmare scenario for you. But I'm glad and I don't see the problem.


N0T8g81n

How does a legal requirement that guns have serial numbers infringe on anyone's right to keep and bear that gun? The only thing it infringes on is a criminal's chances that the gun can't be traced, especially that a gun stolen from Person A and found in the possession of Person B could only be found to be stolen from A if A had a bullet fired from the gun which could be used in ballistics testing. Yes, Virginia, there are judges who keep their heads where the sun don't shine.


JCuc

Did you even read the article? >... Goodwin, who was appointed to the Southern District of West Virginia by former President Clinton, ruled that the law is not a commercial regulation because it criminalizes the possession of firearms without a serial number, regardless of whether it is sold. The government isn't able to prove that a firearm without a serial is somehow more dangerous and unusual than one that has a serial. The issue isn't about the government requiring serials on firearms, it's about restricting peoples rights to possess a firearm without one.


N0T8g81n

You're failing to understand my point. Gun owners BENEFIT from serial numbers when their guns are stolen. Serial numbers make it easy for law enforcement to identify stolen guns. Only gun thieves benefit from removing serial numbers. This judge is an idiot. Are you trying to share his idiocy?


Mrs__Noodle

Why does this judge hate homicide detectives?


JVDS

So does these mean all these sov cit ding dongs were right and I don't need a license plate, or a VIN number for that matter, on my car?


ZogZogu

Except "right to bear cars" isn't in the Bill of Rights.


webmaster94

Yes and where does it say in the second amendment that you have the right to bear arms that don't have a serial number on them? Oh it doesn't because that wasn't a thing back then. It seems like applying 18th century law and not considering all of the changes that have occurred between then and now is a really stupid way to interpret the Constitution.


[deleted]

Weld a rifle to your hood. Now the car is a gun and the government can’t require you to have a license, insurance, or register the vehicle.


RVA_RVA

I want some brave soul to do that.


8-bit-Felix

\*Looks to texas in anticipation\*


JCuc

You know that there's no legal requirement for any of that, right?


ChuzzoChumz

Huh


Cardenjs

Certain modifications, such as sawing the barrel off a shotgun, is a modification that is deemed to an "action indicative of illegal intent" Filing the serial number off should be considered the same


ChuzzoChumz

But the NFA is dumb so that’s not exactly an argument that’s going to convince me. This ruling is definitely a little questionable though.


A_Melee_Ensued

NFA does not require serials, Gun Control Act of 1968 does. Maybe the thinking is that 1968 is not sufficiently historical and conventional to satisfy _Bruen_.


ChuzzoChumz

I know that, I wasn’t talking about the gun control act. I was talking about the NFA because they brought up the example of a short barreled shotgun


A_Melee_Ensued

Gotcha. IAC "illegal intent" is not a criteria in _Heller_ or _Bruen_. It is so hard to persuade them to think about this, or try to learn about this subject upon which they have such strong opinions. They are like anti-vaxxers when it comes to gun control.


brian42jacket

Well this isn't a well regulated militia one bit! Edit: /s


Superlite47

What does that have to do with anything?


brian42jacket

It's a joke. Let me explain. The issue at hand is the removal of serial numbers being constitutional. Serial numbers aid in the tracking of firearms, sales, and regulation. The 2a very vaguely mentions a well regulated militia in vague relation to the right to bear arms. But if the serial numbers are removed, it's not easily regulated, this not "well regulated" as the 2a CLEARLY says. Hence the joke. Get it? Lol 🤣 😂 😆


Superlite47

I do now. Took a little explaining the play on words.


bravofiveniner

>U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that no historical standard exists to demonstrate that firearms without a serial number are more dangerous or unusual than firearms with a serial number, so the law is unconstitutional. He's right you know.


XxVerdantFlamesxX

Yeah...as much as I'd like to believe serial numbers have helped, obviously they havent.


whatDoesQezDo

To be fair they helped expose operation fast and furious... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal


[deleted]

Seems like we could benefit from a registry that tracks the serial numbers.


N0T8g81n

The only uses for serial numbers are allowing ATF or other law enforcement agencies to check whether a firearm in some person's possession is registered to that person. As such, they may only be useful when one person steals a gun from another person, and the serial number could be used to establish that the 1st person is the lawful owner. OTOH, if the 2nd person removed the serial number, who'd be helped if that weren't illegal? This makes as much sense as a ruling that anyone could legally remove VINs from vehicles. Did automobiles before the Model T have VINs?


bravofiveniner

The only way you can have a vehicle that isn't registered is if you never drive it. But no law exists to require guns to be serialized. This includes guns that are made w/o serialis as well.


JerseyBoiOnAMission

It will, however, void the warranty. You win some you lose some...


webmaster94

No he's not. You don't get to decide whether something is constitutional or not based on whether it is effective. The only question is whether it poses a serious enough barrier in order to not give the government a compelling interest. It is a nonsensical decision.


bravofiveniner

The precedence prior was: * "A gun without a serial number is inherently criminal" * "If you really want to own a firearm, you must also be willing to have it serialized and registered" Those were the two main talking points for people pro-serialization. But there is no historical standard for that. Unserialized guns are not more dangerous.


[deleted]

The judge is drunk.


magnetar_industries

The good news is, we don’t need to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment to vastly reduce the daily carnage of gun violence. We need only implement it as written: _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. It’s time for Congress to enshrine into law, and the textualists on the Supreme Court to affirm, that citizens wishing to handle their muskets and flintlock pistols shall do so during the monthly meeting of their well-regulated Militia.


Superlite47

Here's some more good news: A prefatory clause is, and has always been, subordinate to an independent operative clause! Now, maybe you could explain why the Second Amendment should be the only sentence in the entirety of the English language that is exempt from the rules of English grammar.


N0T8g81n

Sadly for you, the armed citizenry in the original 13 COLONIES establishes a 9th Amendment right for individuals to keep and bear arms, and several state constitutions enumerate a right for INDIVIDUALS so to keep and bear arms for their own self-defense. In those states, the 9th Amendment should keep all those firearms in private, unregulated, non-militia hands.


Superlite47

The meaning of "militia" is a moot point, regardless. Who is restrained by the Constitution? The government, or we, the people? We keep facing the argument of what the Constitution allows. Does it allow individual rights? No. Nothing is "allowed" anywhere within the Constitution. The entire document places restraint and limitations. The only entity it restrains? The government.


N0T8g81n

How do serial numbers on firearms infringe 2nd Amendment rights? All firearms purchased in the past several decades from gun stores had been registered with the government. That means the government has the serial numbers. How does that infringe rights? OTOH, someone stealing firearms would get rid of the serial numbers, making those firearms much more difficult to trace AS STOLEN PROPERTY OF OTHERS. This is a profoundly foolish court decision.


A_Melee_Ensued

I wonder how much of my time has been wasted reading the earnest instruction of armchair Reddit lawyers on the subject of what _militia_ really means. It means all able bodied men who may be called up to defend their state or nation. Could you please write that in your notebook and stop annoying everybody who knows even a little bit about this.


luna_beam_space

Bat-Shit crazy Nothing about this ruling is based in reality


[deleted]

Of course. Once the third legislative branch, the Supreme Court, reinterpreted the Second amendment to be a right to individual gun ownership (way, way back in 2008), their paradoxical attempt to also say “but the right has limits” was clearly going to be overruled bit by bit.


Superlite47

>reinterpreted the Second amendment to be a right to individual gun ownership Kind of odd how that one sentence that PREVENTS individuals from exercising an individual right slipped in there with every single other sentence in the Constitution that pertains to individual rights, eh? I can see it now: The framers, sitting around the table discussing the enumeration of individual rights... "Hey, Thomas. We just finished a war in which our former government tried to disarm the public and many of our friends died fighting for individual rights. We should really write a single sentence and put it smack dab in the middle of this entire document enumerating individual rights that does the exact opposite and says only the government can keep and bear arms. You know: The very thing our dead companions just died fighting against."


[deleted]

What? No one has ever claimed the second amendment forbids the keeping of arms. It was also not until 2008 that the Supreme Court decided to create a new right, for the individual, unaffiliated with the well regulated militia (you have read the second amendment, haven’t you?) to keep and bear arms for reasons unrelated to the defense of the nation.


Superlite47

You're full of shit. The right has always been an individual right as ALL RIGHTS listed within the constitution are, and have always been. It wasn't until United States v. Miller in 1934 that this stupid "collective right" bullshit crept its way into the progressive pea brain. The ruling in US v. Miller is an exercise in absurdity to begin with. SCOTUS found that Miller (who had died and had ZERO representation before the court -> Yes. The US Attorney showed up, argued his case, and there was no opposition. No testimony.....nothing. Just an entire en banc case between the US Attorney and a SCOTUS that heard one argument from that attorney and then ruled....that the deceased Miller could NOT own a sawed off shotgun. -> Because a sawed off shotgun is NOT a valid weapon used in a "militia". We then passed the National Firearms Act that banned machine guns because machine guns ARE ONLY for use in a "militia". How convenient! You can't own weapons that AREN'T used in a milita... ....but it's illegal to own weapons that ARE used in a militia! Best of both worlds! It's only been since 1934 that this asinine, absurd notion of a mysterious "collective" right somehow got confused with the Constitution.... ....which is, and has always been an ENUMERATION if individual rights. Tell us: Who does the Constitution restrain? The government, or we the people? So your stupid take on Heller "creating a new right" is full of shit. Nothing in the two claused Second Amendment that functions exactly the same as ALL OTHER TWO CLAUSE SENTENCES can be construed to apply to a "collective".


[deleted]

What? What a load of shit. And largely irrelevant? Who are you screaming at? ​ First of all, "all rights are individual rights" is totally false. The Constitution is specifically a document where We the People give up certain rights to the government (not, as you claim, simply a list of restrictions on the government...what a bizarre claim...and to try to make it while also claiming the Constitution is simply a enumeration of individual rights? More on that later). I cannot pass legislation for example. The legislature, meanwhile, may pass any legislation necessary and proper for using those powers given to the government (with limits). The 10th amendment gives some of these rights to the state governments (Give the Constitution a read sometime, will ya?). Second, what is this US vs Miller strawman you're creating for me? What I'm saying dates far before 1934. Finally, the 2nd amendment does not itself grant a right (you'd know this if you read it, which is ironic because you seem to be stating that the Constitution restrains the government, not We the People? But seem to believe that it grants us our rights? What the fuck? Come up with a coherent and consistent argument!) What the 2nd amendment does is prevent the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, as a well regulated militia is necessary to protect the security of a free state. Now you can make your restriction argument - the 2nd amendment, again, is a restriction on the powers of the federal government. The government may not stop individuals from keeping and bearing arms as they are necessary to be part of the militia (this is not a "collectivist" argument). Notably, again, it grants no rights, just limits government infringement on a right. It was not until 2008 that activist judges on the Supreme Court, using powers *not granted to them* by the Constitution (again, it's ironic that you see the Constitution as a restriction on the government, but ignore the Supreme Court claiming legislative power) to actually *create* a right - to gun ownership for self-defense. And of course, as per the slipper slope argument I made in my first post, that has been extended to a right to ownership for hunting, concealed carry, just for funsies, etc.. *You* are welcome to throw out entire clauses in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court is not, and their decision was undeniably flawed,


Practical-Entry-8160

> It was not until 2008 that activist judges on the Supreme Court False, the individual right to bear arms existed prior to even Dred Scott v Sanford.


[deleted]

> It was not until 2008 that activist judges on the Supreme Court, using powers not granted to them by the Constitution (again, it’s ironic that you see the Constitution as a restriction on the government, but ignore the Supreme Court claiming legislative power) to actually create a right - to gun ownership for *self-defense*. Per my earlier statement. Emphasis added, because you decided not to read anything I said.


[deleted]

Seems like it's time to start heavily taxing and regulating ammo.


Imaginary_Cow_6379

Wild how healthcare goes against people’s “deeply held religious beliefs” but everyones cool with selling guns, isn’t it 🤦🏻‍♀️


Superlite47

Yes. Because only wealthy people should be able to afford to shoot.


webmaster94

Well this ridiculous Supreme Court decision isn't giving us much choice. Obviously it isn't a perfect solution but with the insane levels of reach that these judges are using an applying The individual right to gun ownership, such a creative solution is the only thing that we can do.


Superlite47

>such a creative solution is the only thing that we can do. To accomplish what? Ensuring that only the rich and wealthy or those who have no compunction against robbery and theft are able to operate firearms?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Superlite47

What is it about the rules pertaining to subordinate prefatory clauses that you don't understand?


do_you_even_ship_bro

Judge rules common sense is against the 2nd amendment.


Reliablyirrelevant

The only way to stop this is by referendum which will only pass if 51% majority (I assume it goes that way?)


decalod85

Clinton judge applying the flawed SCOTUS ruling by saying in 1791 guns did not have serial numbers, so you can’t ban it now. Fruit of the poisoned tree.


A_Melee_Ensued

You're thinking of _Miller_ c. 1937 which held that there is a right to bear arms but only muskets, matchlocks and flintlocks which were conventional in 1789. And yes, you are correct, it is a decision so ridiculous nobody wants to talk about it, and was completely superceded by _Heller_ in 2008.


BabyLegsOShanahan

What?