this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
19 points (69.4% liked)

libertarianism

398 readers
1 users here now

About us

An open, user owned community for the general disscussion of the libertarian philosophy.

Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Source: https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/what-is-libertarianism

Rules

1. Stay on topicWe are a libertarian community. There are no restrictions regarding different stances on the political spectrum, but all posts should be related to the philosophy of libertarianism.

2. Be polite to others and respects each others opinions.Be polite to others and respects each others opinions. We don't want any form of gatekeeping or circlejerk culture here.

3. Stay constructive and informationalIn general, all types of contributions are allowed, but the relevance to this community must always be evident and presented openly by the contributor. Posts that do not meet these requirements will be removed after a public warning. Also remember to cite you sources!

4. Use self-moderation measures first before reporting.This community is fundamentally built upon freedom of speech. Since everyone understands libertarianism differently and we do not want to exclude any kind of content a priori, we appeal to the individual users to block/mute posts or users who do not meet their requirements. Please bear this in mind when filing a report

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

The State’s historical list also includes, surprisingly, 38 laws that applied only to particular groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos. Those laws are not relevant to the magazine prohibition challenged in this case. “And Founding-era statutes that disarmed groups of persons who governments thought might be dangerous because of their race or religion were not considered analogous to modern carry prohibitions on released felons also thought to be dangerous: ‘any such analogy would be far too broad.’”163 Even if they were, this Court would give such discriminatory laws little or no weight."

SAINT BENITEZ standing up for everyone’s rights

ruling link

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not really. His conclusion is good, but his process is so deeply flawed that if allowed to set precedent our judicial system will manage to get even worse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What parts of his process do you disagree with?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would say that the following is the main point of issue:

[...] ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

Deciding on laws based on tradition, and historical context has potential to be quite damaging -- these decisions should be made based on principle.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well then I regret to inform you that he wasn't setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen. The precedent already exists on a national scale.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

[...] he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen.

Indeed. It is rather unfortunate.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)