this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024

-2 points (44.4% liked)

Conservative

372 readers

68 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-2

NYC Man Convicted Over Gunsmithing Hobby After Judge Says 2nd Amendment 'Doesn't Exist in This Courtroom' (redstate.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.

Honestly my heart goes out to the defendant. He could easily have been a coworker of mine, and if my coworker told me about his fun hobby making guns without any FFL, smith license, registration or permitting, in this city of all places, I would have dropped everything to talk sense into him.

He sounds like any other gun nerd, but he straight up ignored gun law in a place with famously strict and well-enforced gun laws, and with serious gusto.

defendant’s 36 ghost gun arsenal

I’m kind of surprised he was able to make as many guns as he did before metro police came knocking. This is Brooklyn. You will almost never see plainclothes open carry in NYC, but manufacturing pushes the case into another bracket entirely.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.

It does apply. A state can create gun laws but they can't violate the 2nd amendment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts primarily the federal government, save for 5A and 7A and using either clause to use 2A to override state gun control by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No, that isn't how it works at all. That is a view before the Civil War and partially up till the 1960, but SCOTUS has made it clear. The rights are for everyone, state/federal. The states cannot violate your rights in the constitution.

One of the arguments in Miranda is that the state did not have to follow the 5th Amendment. As you can tell, that did not work as the state thought.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review. Which case incorporated 2A? Was it more recent than DC-Heller?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Miranda is from the 1960’s.

Heller is fairly recent but the only reason scotus took the case is states can’t violate the amendments.

Unless you were born in the 1860’s, it’s been fairly well known that the constitution cannot be violated by states on their citizens.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Just so I’m on the same page, we’re still talking about the first 10 (not 13-15, 19, etc.) and the question is whether 2A renders state gun control unconstitutional?

~~Edit: Also assuming the latter is true, are we then to read 2a as a guarantee to possession of these weapons to citizens carte blanche?~~

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The whole Constitution is applied to the states.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then we need to overhaul the court systems and multiply their bureaucratic size and process to satisfy the grand jury requirement of 5A and the civil jury trial right of 7A.

And assuming 2a renders state gun control unconstitutional, I presume then we read 2A as a carte blanche guarantee to possession of these weapons to citizens.

This is what we propose, yes?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

By default, it doesn't render it unconsotitional. It means you can't violate it by restricting rights.

We already meet the requirements for 5th and 7th. WHy do you think plea bargains are so popular?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We already meet the requirements for 5th and 7th.

States do not because as of yet, 5’s grand jury requirement, 6’s criminal jury trial right, and 7’s civil jury trial right have not been interpreted as binding upon the states.

By default, it doesn’t render it unconstitutional. It means you can’t violate it by restricting rights.

I agree that’s the precedent, but I’m unclear where we should place that threshold of violation. Presumably somewhere on the scale of TX to NY? Perhaps… IL?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well I learned something new today. I always thought we could ask for a jury in a civil state case. I’ve done federal and you can do bench or jury.

I agree that’s the precedent, but I’m unclear where we should place that threshold of violation

The courts determine and then it rolls up. Also in district appears to radically differ on what is allows or not. To be clear I’m pro-second amendment but I do believe in reasonable restrictions. No felons. Background checks. Etc.

Other people feel any restriction is wrong and I disagree with that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

(Apologies, got busy at work.) Yes I’d have thought so too. There might be a list which jurisdictions where it’s available.

I suspect the lack of precedent for their incorporation among the amendments binding the states comes down to just the budgetary requirements for expansion. As long as it remains unreasonable or impossible to enforce without effectively being taken over by federal, these exceptions remain.

2A might be similar in principle, since there’s no one-size-fits-all doctrine that can be realistically applied besides either zero regulation or a complete ban, both of which would risk a great deal of legitimacy.

I’m with you re: gun control. Tools not toys. Many tools are dangerous enough to require proof of competency or purpose, and some can only be used in certain situations. Surely a tool whose purpose is danger shouldn’t be the exception.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I’m with you re: gun control. Tools not toys. Many tools are dangerous enough to require proof of competency and/or purpose. Guns specifically designed to be dangerous, so it’s not unreasonable to expect those tools have greater oversight

A gun should be dangerous. That’s its job.

I’m for reasonable restrictions and I’ll admit that’s a hard term to define without seeing the law proposed. I have no issue with a background check being required for all purchases. With the internet. It’s not that hard now.

I am not against permits for CCW. As long as it’s an easy process that doesn’t make overly difficult. In Nevada I had to take a class , shoot a couple of times and apply for the permit.

I don’t mind bump stocks being banned.

Things like that I find reasonable. Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Banning assault rifles I do not think is reasonable.

Yeah I avoid debating weapon class bans because it always amounts to an arbitrary threshold on the scale of potential kill rate, and people sporting desert storm kits at the grocery store do all the talking anyway.

In Nevada I had to take a class, shoot a couple times and apply for a permit.

Training is the regulation I think my fellow progressives should back. Do that correctly and the rest takes care of itself. Anti-gun messaging clearly isn’t working. Instead, embrace gun ownership as a public service wed to demonstrated responsibility and discipline, since safety is the actual goal.

By discipline I mean require training, make it rigorous and cheap, and make regular shooting mandatory for permit renewal. Require inspections for proper maintenance and adherence to storage safety protocols. Offer specialist certifications for more exotic equipment. Basically, make sure would-be gun owners respect the weapon, understand the responsibility they’re taking on, and are equipped to use them safely and proficiently. Done right, civilians seeking military outfitting would face the same requirements as equivalent military personnel, so that they might as well just become a reservist.

Every hooah 2a person I’ve known would be all for this. But they take guns seriously and aren’t contributing to the statistics. The actual unsafe assholes, who make guns a national problem, wouldn’t bother owning guns if there was work involved. It may not be popular (yet) among “liberals” but lots of countries with high rates of gun ownership and low gun violence handle regulation this way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Ghost guns" are protected, theyre just home made guns. Even the atf says so.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Allowed at the federal level yes, but state regs differ, and NYS gun law covers the 80% kits (S.14, S.13A).

I certainly wouldn’t pedal New York gun law as the ideal but AFAIK it’s not inconsistent re: unfinished receivers vs traditional firearms.

Edit: I forgot to summarize the local code. In short, dude needed a license, similar to the one needed to handle refrigerants or work on electrical systems. A few months turnaround but isn’t cost-prohibitive: https://thegunzone.com/how-to-become-a-gunsmith-in-ny/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Federal law overrides state law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

The 2nd still applies in NYC

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I don’t remember much con law, but I seem to recall using 7a to incorporate 2a is very much a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t prospect, and justices have historically leaned on stare decisis to avoid cutting the knot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It also says taxes and an ATF anpproval are needed.

Did the subject of the post’s article do that?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Only if they plan to sell it, or if they are making an NFA item.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

No that’s a separate clause. You’re misreading.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

An American judge in an American coutroom says the American Constitution does not exist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah poor choice of words. Like someone else said here, her thought process was most likely along the lines that the defendant’s second amendment right isn’t being challenged, as much as the state laws he broke by doing this.

EDIT: Since looking more into the details of this case that’s exactly what is happening. The defendant allegedly broke state laws doing what he did. That’s what the case is about.

I’m guessing based off that the Judge made a terrible attempt at focusing the discussion on the state laws broken vs. dwelling on the second amendment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The constituion supersedes state laws.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Right, when they conflict. But there are laws against ghost guns in New York that this person allegedly broke, which is why this is happening.

Just because there are laws against ghost guns doesn’t mean your right to own a gun is being infringed upon. This has been proven.

There’s a difference between “manufacture” and “keep and bear”. The constitution only covers the second one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Paying close attention to the details of the case will be lost on the people this is meant to engage. "A judge said my rights don't matter!" Sigh…

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Yep it’s all just reactionary. All we can do is point it out.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That is an infringment on firearms. There are to no restrictions. Private ciztens bought canons. American citizens are free to manufacture and sell ghost guns.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah…..no. Sorry, the right to manufacture weapons is not covered in the constitution. The right to keep and bear them, is.

The second amendment is not a blanket free for all when it comes to guns, as much as you may be told by conservative media. It just allows you to own and defend yourself with them.

It’s in a similar vein to the first amendment, which means you can freely speak out against your government without repercussion and peacefully protest. It does not mean you can use whatever racial slur you want and be protected (just as an example). There are limitations to even the bill of rights my guy.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Bill of Rights do not mention limits, the Consititutions do not mention limits, there are no limits. People are free to racial slurs, people are free make and sell ghost guns, people are free insult and mock homosexuals.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Sure you can, but you’re not protected to do so and you will face consequences for it.

You can insult and mock whoever you want as long as you’re ready to be accused of a hate crime. It’s your choice in the end. Always was.

This guy in the article chose to make ghost guns even though he lived in a state with laws against that.

The absence of limits in the Bill of Rights is not implied unlimited protection. This has been argued successfully many times over. Your understanding of the text and legal interpretations is lacking.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Define what is a hate crime that everybody would recognize and agree.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why don’t you tell me what you wish you could do and I’ll find out if it’s legal and send you what I found.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I reject laws, except for homicide and kidnapping. It can be legal to commit evil, and illegal to do a good act.

If someone does something that is not bad but deemed illegal, I would protect them from the law to protect morality. If someone I know carries concealed firearms, that is moral and just. If an intruder breaks into someone's house, the resident has an obligation to kill the intruder immediately. I help those kinds of people to hide if the law contradicts morality

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What’s good or moral about insulting someone and calling them a racial slur?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Freedom to express any opinion a person decides because no opinion or words causes bodiy injuries, only actions do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

lol, not good enough.

The Supreme Court and Congress also disagrees with this stance:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I disregard their opinion, and I live in complete absence of their decision. I have no regard for restriction and I will provide material support to everyone that goes against it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Have fun calling people slurs then

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"Judges shouldn't be allowed to ignore laws" and "I disregard the opinion of the supreme court" is some grade A cognitive dissonance. Just chef's kiss

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I never said judges shouldn't be allowed to ignore laws.

Judges have an obligation to ignore all laws that are immoral aand unjust. Laws are only for protecting the citizens. There are to be no laws ever protecting governments. The citizens are to be protect from the government.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I'm honestly wondering how she got where she is, who failed?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Maybe to her it's a matter of "We live in the free country of New York and do not live in the United States of America.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't it a woman? (or did I misread)

Either way, this person should be removed and permanently disbarred.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

Yup, you're right. I've corrected it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'

Any judge who says this should be removed immediately. The second amendment is valid in all states.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It'll be an easy one to call for mistrial.

This is how ideological progressives are. They truly don't believe in the rule of law.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That’s a little accusatory. This particular judge chose their words poorly, but you can’t just apply this blanket statement to a group of people you don’t agree with without something substantial to back your claim up.

Most progressives I know are more into the idea of closing loopholes to more easily obtain guns than taking away someone’s guns or revoking their 2nd amendment right.

This just shows the gap in understanding in the political spectrum. The media has been successful at dividing us :(.