District Court in NYC upholds unconstitutional gun law

[Damocles]

That the supreme court thought you were stupid? Dunno.

Damo knows more than John Marshall. He can see things 200 years of constitutional scholars can't.

BS. This has been argued by constitutional lawyers in just the ways we have argued it here since nearly its inception. Pretending that the argument has never been made, or that the last portion of your article doesn't exist, or that Amendment X does not deal directly with how rights are apportioned, is simply pretense.

DH pretends as if it is concrete in an attempt to dismiss the importance of the ruling. This ruling will create myriad more cases until the SCOTUS finally makes a definitive ruling.

 

[Damocles]

States rights are completely different from individual rights, Damo. You are comparing apples to oranges and falsely equivalizing things.

I am telling you that one cannot have a right only to have it curtailed by the government in a different way. If it is a right to the Individual it is protected, by many different means in the constitution. Even if it has not yet been ruled to be incorporated.

You have fallen for DH's paper tiger. "Just trust me" is not an argument of distinction, nor is pretending that this argument has been settled when it has been argued for more than a Century by constitutional scholars.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am telling you that one cannot have a right only to have it curtailed by the government in a different way. If it is a right to the Individual it is protected, by many different means in the constitution. Even if it has not yet been ruled to be incorporated.

You have fallen for DH's paper tiger. "Just trust me" is not an argument of distinction, nor is pretending that this argument has been settled when it has been argued for more than a Century by constitutional scholars.

The federal government was limited in infringing on the rights of the people, not the state governments. You are pretending as if that's logically impossible.

 

[Damocles]

The federal government was limited in infringing on the rights of the people, not the state governments. You are pretending as if that's logically impossible.

I am not "pretending" anything. Amendment 14 dealt with much of that, with this question left unanswered.

If you have an individual right to something, it is protected by the Constitution. There is Article IV which limited States, and Amendment X which specifically stated that some rights are not the States'. Rights that are afforded to individuals were "The People's" and therefore protected.

This ruling can fall in there, as well as can be used to bring up the question of incorporation. The SCOTUS can rule in either way, depending on who is interpreting the document.

As I stated, many times now. This has been argued for more than a Century by many constitutional scholars and is not as concrete as DH, or apparently you now, want to believe.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am not "pretending" anything. Amendment 14 dealt with much of that, with this question left unanswered.

If you have an individual right to something, it is protected by the Constitution. There is Article IV which limited States, and Amendment X which specifically stated that some rights are not the States'. Rights that are afforded to individuals were "The People's" and therefore protected.

This ruling can fall in there, as well as can be used to bring up the question of incorporation. The SCOTUS can rule in either way, depending on who is interpreting the document.

As I stated, many times now. This has been argued for more than a Century by many constitutional scholars and is not as concrete as DH, or apparently you now, want to believe.

The bill of rights did not "grant" rights, it said the federal government would not violate them.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I am not "pretending" anything. Amendment 14 dealt with much of that, with this question left unanswered.

If you have an individual right to something, it is protected by the Constitution. There is Article IV which limited States, and Amendment X which specifically stated that some rights are not the States'. Rights that are afforded to individuals were "The People's" and therefore protected.

This ruling can fall in there, as well as can be used to bring up the question of incorporation. The SCOTUS can rule in either way, depending on who is interpreting the document.

As I stated, many times now. This has been argued for more than a Century by many constitutional scholars and is not as concrete as DH, or apparently you now, want to believe.

It has been argued in the century since the 14th amendment was passed. You're legal theory that you just made up out of nowhere has never been presented or heard before any court anywhere ever because it is completely and totally asinine and only Damo could make such a thing up.

 

[Damocles]

The bill of rights did not "grant" rights, it said the federal government would not violate them.

*sigh*

It enumerated the rights.

Anyway, the SCOTUS ruled before, in Texas v. Miller, that the Article IV portion that I suggested did not apply as the arms must be for the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. This ruling changes that ruling in that it states that it is an individual right to own the firearm for personal protection and not solely for the preservation of a well-regulated militia. Since the ruling changes, it does not immediately mean that the Individuals in question would be protected now as they were not in that ruling, it certainly brings back up the argument, based on the same Article IV section “privileges and immunities of citizenship”.

Stating that they could not apply now because of past rulings pretends that current rulings cannot substantially change the face of laws.

Thankfully, bad decisions can be changed by future rulings, and current law can be argued on the current ruling.

 

[Damocles]

It has been argued in the century since the 14th amendment was passed. You're legal theory that you just made up out of nowhere has never been presented or heard before any court anywhere ever because it is completely and totally asinine and only Damo could make such a thing up.

See the above post. I didn't make it up.

I am always fascinated by the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings. Some I disagree with, but do realize that they apply because the SCOTUS does decide on the constitutionality of laws. Some I agree with vociferously. I am glad that this ruling opens up new arguments and interpretations, many of which will be heard. This ruling will echo for quite some time. I'm interested to see where it goes and was fascinated to read previous rulings, many of which I believe will be argued again in many courts because of this one ruling. They have an amazing amount of efficacy.