Supreme Court taking a 2nd Amendment case

#1

The Supreme Court is taking its first 2nd amendment case since 2010. The case is challenging New York cities’ traveling with a firearm out of the city. In short you can’t take your gun out of city limits, with Kavanaugh on the court now, do you think we will see more 2nd amendment cases?

4 Likes
#2

I hope so but after seeing the laws that are being passed and other being voted on. I don’t have alot of faith left in our court system. The last line of defense was supposed to be a non partisan court system and now its become a political battleground.

2 Likes
#3

There are a lot of laws already on the books and criminals will not worry about a gun law when they’re out to commit murder (which is illegal in its own right).

We’ll all be watching the court and it decision…

2 Likes
#4

I agree with you that the court should be non partisan, After seeing the Kavanaugh hearings and seeing how the Democrats did everything they could to smear him. It shows just how important the Senate stay in control of the Republican. My hope it that the court will take more cases and get rid of some of these ridiculous laws some of these states are proposing.

1 Like
#5

100 percent agree. Instead of enforcing the laws on the books already, the gun prohibition lobby wants more laws. They think they are one law away from stoping criminals. But we know you can’t legislate away evil.

1 Like
#6

I never understood how politicans and lawyers can skew the words “shall not be infringed.” I really don’t understand how it is up for discussion. Judges should be holding up the bill of rights, yelling “NOPE” and banging the gavel. I mean I know that will ever happen, but I wish it would.

4 Likes
#7

Justice Thomas wanted to take on 2A cases as he felt, rightfully so, that the lower courts were blatantly disregarding their rulings, particularly Heller and MacDonald, but he couldn’t get the backing to do so. Well, the tide has certainly turned, and may turn some more. The NY case is one of several that the NRA plans on pushing, and apparently has some anti-gun factions concerned enough that they’ve called on NYC to concede before it goes to the Supreme Court as that will certainly expose more blatant disregard for the 2A. The outcome of this case could bode very well for 2A nationwide.

There’s also currently a lawsuit here in MA against the Attorney General Maura Healey that has moved forward after her appeal to have the case dismissed. Hopefully things may be looking up, but we’ll see.

4 Likes
#8

I don’t get it. The constitution is black and white when it comes to the 2nd Amendment - “shall not be infringed”. There would need to be a constitutional amendment to produce legal gun laws.

2 Likes
#9

Kicking the hornets nest on purpose. :honeybee: The reason I’m doing this is so that we can discuss the various viewpoints in a positive and educational environment so when these questions are posed by very anti-gun people, we have a well thought out, calm response.

“Shall not be infringed” does that mean that felons should be able to have firearms?

What about minors?

What about people who are mentally unstable? (Who gets to determine who is mentally unstable?)

And yes, I do want you to answer these and share your reasoning. We may not all agree, but at least we’ll be able to discuss it logically and in a spirit of education.

1 Like
#10

@Dawn

As far as felons go if it was a violent crime you should not be allowed to own firearms. They already show a history of violence However as of right now they can own old school black poweder weapons as they are not considered firearms.

Minors should not be allowed to own firearms but should be encouraged to learn how to shoot and maintain them. I know it comes down to a maturity level argument but I’ve never had an issue with someone waiting till they are 18 to buy one for themselves. Its not like they cant or havent gone shooting by that point if they wanted too. This 21 age limit is stupid, if they can join the military and get a rifle to defend this country then they absolutely should have every right afforded to an American citizen.

As for the mentally ill, if they’ve been clinically diagnosed by more than one doctor then no they also should not be allowed access to firearms as i dont believe they have the awareness to maintain proper gun safety.

That being said the root of this issue is people wanting to feel safe, there is no perfect system to guarantee everyones safety but someones fears should never trump someone eles rights. Most of these active shooter, terrorist attacks, whatever else you want to call them could have been prevented on multiple levels that are already in place but someone at some level failed to do their duty and since it was a gun free zone it left the citizens defenseless. I will always choose dangerous freedom over safe slavery because the later is just a dream world of being dependent on someone else and hoping they don’t fail you.

4 Likes
#11

That the way it should go but the court is just as political as the rest of Washington. I truly believe now that there is a conservative majority on the court this will help strengthen our constitutional rights.

2 Likes
#12

@JasonReeve81 Yeah, the supreme court is very political. I’m actually very glad some of these cases are being heard, like you are, because onced passed through the conservative court, it is very hard to repeal the ruling. Hopefully anything regarding magazine sizes, red flag laws, and action types can be pushed through as well, and in our favor. The political climate is so crazy right now, our country is divided almost as bad as 1859, and people are blaming inanimate objects for actions. I wish inanimate objects did stuff, I wouldn’t have to call an electrician or plumber again!

3 Likes
#13

Shall not be infringed, to me means I can have the same firearms as the armed forces. I don’t mean bombs and Grenade launchers. I mean rifles. Select fire or not. It’s my right to defend myself, with equal force, against enemies upto and including a tyrannical government.
No, felons should not. They waved their rights when they committed a felony. Nonviolent felons can have their rights restored, after they have paid their debt to society.
No, minors should not own a gun. They should be taught proper safety and usage, but still need guidance and supervision. That said, once they reach 18 they should be able to own whatever firearm they want. Pistol, or long gun. They are old enough to join the military, and get issued a handgun and an automatic weapon, they shouldn’t return home and be told by a politician they can’t be trusted until they are 21.

3 Likes
#14

To me, the shall not infringed part only applies to the law abiding.
As for minors, well they can shoot their parents’ guns or older siblings’ guns. And then when they’re 18 they should be able to buy whatever they want.
As for mentally unstable, I would say that mentally unstable classifies as someone who has hallucinations, or has like psychotic breakdowns that can turn violent or something like that. I wish liberals would be deemed mentally unstable too. that’d be helpful as far as politics go because then no one, hopefully, would trust them.

2 Likes
#15

A lot of liberals have very similar values and views as conservatives, while just a few topics separate the two “sides”. The media likes to play the divide and extremists to exploit the conflict for ratings.

We welcome people with all viewpoints on our Community as long as their viewpoints are expressed respectfully. We can learn from people who disagree with us as much as we can teach those who disagree with us.

3 Likes
#16

I’ll agree that media has a huge part in the divide of this country, but having lived in a very liberal part of this country. The left, liberals or Democrats whatever you want to call them enjoy being extremists and it seems that they are pushing for anything that used to be good is now evil and vice versa.

I’ll respect anyone’s way of life. That doesnt mean I’ll celebrate it or teach it to my kids. I will teach my kids that what makes this country great is they have the freedom to live that way.

However I will not tolerate anyone having any rights taken away, if I dont like what i hear I stop listening, if I dont like policymakers I vote. At a certain point people choose to act like criminals and destroy property or attack other people for their political views that is the textbook definition of a terrorist and it needs to stop being tolerated by all leaders on all sides.

3 Likes
#17

I think you hit it on the head when you said extremists - it is not all liberal, democratic, conservative, republican…

This Community is being built on respectful interactions and educational conversations. Blanket negative statements about any group does not advance anyone’s ability to learn or have positive interactions.

I will ask that blanket negative/derogatory statements not be made here. It does not advance quality interactions.

3 Likes
#18

Gotcha @Dawn. I didn’t mean to make a blanket statement like that. I guess I made an… Uneducated statement since really the only liberals that I can apply to my previous statement are those I’ve seen in the news articles (not mainstream media but independent news sources)

2 Likes
#19

No worries, @luke_ouellette. We all want responsibly armed Americans to be taken seriously, so we need to make sure we’re always taking the high road and handle every situation with as much dignity as we can. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#20

Land mine. Avoiding.

1 Like