Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Box]

The real mark of success will be reading an article that shows the uptick in newly issued carry permits

...or the uptick in lawsuits because New York told the courts to fuck right off

[GratefulCitizen]

New York gets smacked down again.
They will, of course, appeal.

At this point New York and other states are just stalling.
This only serves to build a very strong foundation from an abundance of cases citing the Bruen decision.

If it goes up again, SCOTUS may end up freeing gun rights even further.
Heller, McDonald, Bruen…the arc of history is bending towards liberty.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1669158485

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

At this point New York and other states are just stalling.
This only serves to build a very strong foundation from an abundance of cases citing the Bruen decision.

Good again to see a jurist coming from the perspective of "that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted" rather than the NY (and others) approach of "you can't do it unless I say so." The former is the proper state of affairs.

[bubba]

At this point it is more than clear what the “state” is doing. They are picking a fight. They WANT the “Citizens of the several states” to just start shooting at them (either directly or with lawsuits) in rebellion.

By behaving this way, when (not if) another lunatic with a “high-powered-assault-machine-pistol-with-a-100-round-magazine-clip-firing-fully-semi-automatic-with-a-sniper-night-sight” starts shooting kids on a playground or homosexuals at a night club (an/or congress) then there can be cries of “we, the sensible gun control party, told you this was going to happen”….

Now get in the train car, it’s for your own good….

Or in the words of Mr. Box, “Eat your peas!”

[Box]

Originally Posted by bubba

Or in the words of Mr. Box, “Eat your peas!”

Dear sweet Jesus - "Mr" ??
Seriously?
You said Mr?
...are you seriously assuming my gender while posting about a socially sensitive topic?

C'mon man. You're better than that. "Box" is a gender-less pronoun that encompasses all that is marvelous in the known universe. The nonsense and frivolity that rests at my core transcend gender. A Box has no gender - it just, "is"
...which is a difficult concept in and of itself - just ask Bill Clinton - he testified under oath that he wasn't sure about the definition of the word "is"

Not to mention, we the people just nominated, confirmed, and seated a supreme court Justice that doesn't know what a woman "is"

When a POTUS that isn't sure about the word "is" and a SCOTUS with two "X" chromosomes can testify before congress that she can't define what a 'woman' is without consulting with a Biologist, then certainly we can't just assume the existential binary identity status of Box and when the executive branch and judicial branch can't figure out things like "is" or the gender associated with their own chromosomal makeup, clearly they can't be trusted figure out something as nuanced as responsible gun ownership.

Now, since this "is" a 2a thread let me steer my post back on topic by stating that even guns can be figured out when it comes to gender:
243 "is" a Girl Hunting Caliber
308 "is" a Male Hunting Caliber
380 and 9x19 are Female Concealed Carry Calibers
45 ACP "is" a Male Concealed Carry Caliber
...and since a 1911 chambered in 9x19 can be a male OR female concealed carry pistol; we can clearly assume that guns can be completely nonbinary which proves that guns are for everyone


that is all

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by bubba

They WANT the “Citizens of the several states” to just start shooting at them (either directly or with lawsuits) in rebellion.

Teaser.

[Badger52]

Good coverage of this case by Ammoland here.

Meat of the matter:

From the opinion:

Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods. A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality. That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.

Judge Counts concludes with this:

That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds that the Government did not prove that §922(g)(8) aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.

Before and after the passage of the controversial Lautenberg Amendment in 1996, many commentators noted several constitutional problems with the law.

It was the first time a fundamental constitutional right could be removed for a misdemeanor;
It was the first time a fundamental constitutional right could be removed for a restraining order;
The amendment punished people for past behavior, thus, it was an ex-post-facto law.

When courts were presented with these arguments, the counterarguments were:

The Second Amendment is not an individual right;
People are not being punished for past acts, but for acts in the present; if they possess firearms in the present, they are violating the law (this presumes removing a constitutional right is not punishment)

Judge Counts’ opinion sweeps away those excuses. As Bruen shows the Second Amendment as a fundamental right on par with the First Amendment, those arguments no longer apply.

The Supreme Court has held a person whose constitutional rights are violated, even for a moment, suffers irreparable harm.

[bubba]

Am I the only one thinking “hey, how about I go and do something to get arrested like build a machine-gun so I can sue the fed-bois and get the entire NFA tossed out”?

Yeah, it would be a pain in the ass, but I’m retired and don’t have shit else to do?

“I’m gonna go pick a fight”…….

[MR2]

Originally Posted by bubba

“I’m gonna go pick a fight”…….

Planning is key. Get yourself a legal team willing to go the distance (get it in writing). Start a legal fund - market it. Video the build and arrest.

Oh, and cleanse thy life, computers, electronic history, abode, and friends list.

Double oh, carry a toothbrush...

<salute>

Addendum: I've long said if I needed a lawyer, I'd check with cop friends and prosecutors to see who they considered the biggest son of a bitch around. Then I'd hire that son of a bitch.

[rsdengler]

Originally Posted by bubba

Am I the only one thinking “hey, how about I go and do something to get arrested like build a machine-gun so I can sue the fed-bois and get the entire NFA tossed out”?

Yeah, it would be a pain in the ass, but I’m retired and don’t have shit else to do?

“I’m gonna go pick a fight”…….

Sounds like a plan...

[bubba]

Well, not to be outdone by the left coast’s brand of Krazy, it seems that the land of lincoln really wants to reclaim it’s place in the heart (land) of stupid….. I guess they somehow missed out on that whole Oregon thing going on….

https://www.maxonshooters.com/blog/h...-ban-is-coming

I hope that this just adds ammunition to the 50-round magazine being loaded into the “destroy the NFA / GCA” lawsuit that is coming.

[Badger52]

Dr. Lott testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security last week for a hearing dedicated to “Examining Uvalde: The Search for Bipartisan Solutions to Gun Violence.”*

At this link are 3 quick narrative points and the video of his testimony. The video portion is just 30 minutes; worthwhile. 3 points he starts off with:

1. Over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey for 2020 shows 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, firearms were involved in 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with firearms.

2. While the US media doesn’t give much, if any, coverage to mass public shootings in other countries, mass public shootings per capita are relatively low in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, the US had less than 1.13% of the world’s share of mass public shooters and 1.77% of its mass public shooting murders. That’s much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Since 2000, there have been nine mass public school shootings in the US. Germany had only three over that period and Finland had only one, but the United States has four times the population of Germany and sixty times that of Finland. Russia has had four such massacres, but we have 2.3 times its population. On a per capita basis, all three countries have a similar or higher rate compared to that of the US.

3. Like many other mass public shooters, the Buffalo shooter targeted defenseless people. He even wrote in his manifesto: “Attacking in a weapon-restricted area may decrease the chance of civilian backlash. Schools, courts, or areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack. Areas where CCW permits are low may also fit in this category. Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.” The national media refuses to report other explicit statements by attackers explaining why they pick the targets they do. Nor do they report the fact that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having firearms.

[Box]

facts dont matter in the USA - the agenda is all that matters

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Box

facts dont matter in the USA - the agenda is all that matters

True. But they can be useful in a 1:1 encounter at times.

[Box]

Originally Posted by Badger52

True. But they can be useful in a 1:1 encounter at times.

On its face - I agree with you 100% but in practice: "true believers" aren't interested in 1:1 encounters.

-True believers "say" they believe in free speech - as l0ng as you say what they want you to say.
-True believers "say" they believe in ekwalitee - as long as you let them decide who gets to be more equal.
-True believers "say" they want diversity and inclusion - as long as everyone looks and acts the same.

Facts are meaningless to the true believers - on BOTH sides of the spectrum.