Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

I'm sorry you choose to not understand the difference between "the people" and "militia"
In any event, your argument was discarded 2 decades ago and is irrelevant.

 

Nowhere does Jefferson argue that you are entitled to be provided the means to exercise your rights.

 

The right to pursue them and provide them for yourself, and the right of the government to punish someone who takes them from you and only that person, are.

For instance: I have the right to keep and bear arms, but no one has to issue me a weapon.

 

We've been through this: Your example is a conditional statement. An offer.

A prefatory clause is not a conditional statement. A prefatory clause has no effect to alter or add to or take away from the operative clause.

 

I gave it already in the last post.

If the Founding Fathers had meant the 2nd amendment to mean just, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" why didn't they just SAY THAT? (microphone drop). Why put in a completely superfluous (by your interpretation) "prefatory" phrase written as a conditional?

 

No it wasn’t, it was ignored so that Scalia could rationalize what he wanted to do before he even took the case, that is how/why he invented the “Originalism” crap

And the people militia thing is again bullshit, no one knows what the term militia meant, no Supreme Court not even this one could define it, any arguement you can bring forth can easily be ping ponged with another

 

Oh, so the kid is entitled to the five dollars regardless of what he does, got it, wish my old man thought like that

 

It was, and it is.
It doesn't matter how much you whine and cry, the 2nd means something you don't like, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Good point, and one I see generally ignored

 

Wrong, and wrong, New York next month is having a special session to deal with the Court’s idiocy, look for stricter requirements beginning with mandatory training to come out regarding concealed weapons,

 

Now you're just lying to yourself.

 

You act as if the much wealthier anti gun lobby and its complicit anti gun MSM were fountains of Truth and Honesty.

With Biden and Harris raving about the evils of the 2nd Amendment, it's no wonder 2A advocates don't want this administration doing gun violence related "research ".

 

When was the last time you saw an NRA or similar magazine anywhere?

Meanwhile, you can't go anywhere without being bombarded with MSM's omnipresent anti gun drivel.

 

They did "just say that." You quoted it. Where is the confusion coming from? Let's go back to my last question. If you believe the Founders were so intelligent where is the evidence that they made a huge glaring mistake that nobody noticed when writing the 2nd Amendment?

 

Ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled, twice now (or is it three times?) that owning a firearm is a Constitutional Right unconnected with militia membership, perhaps you don't realize that all able-bodied males in between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the US Federal Militia. That likely includes you, it used to include me, and it applies to every single other person that fits that description. I'd bet that if anyone ever bothered filing a lawsuit about it, the feds would be forced to include women as well, under the 14th Amendment.

The semantic argument about militias ended with Heller, though, so even though most men already are (or were, if they aged out, or in my case, if they aged and disability outed), and women are probably covered, too.

As for me, I'm a vet anyway.

So, do you have any other obsolete points to make?

 

Actually, yes, it's 10 U.S. Code § 246. Maybe you should try doing a bit of research before running off at the mouth, eh?

 

Which is precisely why I don't have a sign in my yard that says "This property protected by Smith & Wesson". Even though it is. Multiple Smiths, actually, including one of those evil "assault" weapons or three.

 

What @TOG 6 wrote was a loose quote of the Heller decision of the Supreme Court. Those arguments have been heard by the Supreme Court and rejected by them as incorrect and irrelevant. That is something you should probably be aware of if you're going to discuss this subject.

 

It was a copy/paste.

He's aware. He doesn't care.

 

Sweden as proved what should be obvious by now: Gun Control Laws empower violent criminals.

“Affixed to the wall in Mr. Appelgren’s office in Stockholm’s Police Headquarters is a chart showing the increase in the use of hand grenades. Until 2014 there were about a handful every year. In 2015, that number leapt: 45 grenades were seized by the police, and 10 others were detonated. The next year, 55 were seized and 35 detonated.”

“Mr. Appelgren has watched the trend apprehensively, calling it an arms race among gangs.

“I think we’re going to see, if we don’t stop it, more drive-by shootings with Kalashnikovs and hand grenades,” he said. “They throw rocks and bottles at our cars, and they trick us in an ambush. When will it happen that they ambush us with Kalashnikovs? It’s coming.”

“Sellers in Bosnia and Serbia have networks in Sweden’s diaspora and are so eager to unload excess grenades, … that they throw them in free with the purchase of AK-47s, Mr. Appelgren said. In Sweden the street price of a hand grenade is 100 kroner, or $12.50.”
NEW YORK TIMES, Hand Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden’s Middle Class, By ELLEN BARRY and CHRISTINA ANDERSONMARCH 3, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/world/europe/sweden-crime-immigration-hand-grenades.html

When will they ever learn?

 

v Bruen:

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

The burden is on the state to demonstrate the regulation they want does not violate the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, in terms of the historical tradition of firearm regulation.across the US.

The rejection of means-end scrutiny -- intermediate and strict scrutiny -- is a powerful move.

 

You were speaking to me and you said you which indicates me. At least in the English language it does

 

Again: Your example is a conditional statement, not a prefatory and operative clause pair.

 

I thought it might be, but I wasn't sure, and I was too lazy to actually look it up, so I erred on the side of caution and called it a loose quote. But I did see later where you actually posted the quote rather than just typing the words out yourself.

In either event, what you wrote was correct, both as it should apply, and as it has since Heller. I don't know if people are unaware of this, or just don't care.

This one is going to be interesting as the States that have "may issue" (which, in the case of NY, especially NYC, means "may issue if you are a friend of the Mayor") are very married to those laws and I expect them to fight them to the point of outright ignoring them, so it's going to be an interesting couple of years. I think some NYC public officials may end up in jail over it at some point, because they'll simply pretend the SCOTUS didn't just say what in fact they just said.

 

If Democrats can ignore supreme court rulings, then so can everyone else.