Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

No, because we can shift the argument to whether or not Bruen was a competent ruling.

We can debate whether public safety should be considered, and that we should reverse Bruen.

Moreover, public safety can be legislated if it has historical precedent, which conforms to my statement which you alleged was 'proven wrong'.

My statement was 'your statement doesn't negate that Bruen does not explicitly exclude public safety, it only narrows it', and I'm not convinced you have proven it false.

That's a valid argument. You may disagree, but it's a debate point, nevertheless.

Doing so would not be 'dishonest'.

Your alleging dishonesty is dishonest.

 

In the real world, you opinion re: Bruen does not matter.
It's there, it prevents you from doing what you want to do, and you don't get to ignore it.

In your fantasy world, you can make whatever arguments you like re: Bruen -- they mean nothing.

 

Literally its on tape and you can WATCH the voice vote, its results, the call for a formal vote go ignored, etc.
You can SEE how the amendment is added.

Then you don't have to have ChatGPT tell you about legislation.

 

Yes I am.

CHATGPT is not a good source for legal analysis, it makes up its own cases and facts. Lawyers have been disbarred for using it. Please stop confusing yourself, and just read the ****ing case. How lazy can a person be?

Read Bruen and you'll understand that anything rooted in the historical tradition doesn't get covered by the 2a.
So no, what the 2a covers is not at all susceptible to a public safety argument and YES all public safety arguments are balancing tests.

 

"The key factor is the historical precedent, not a modern assessment of the balance between gun rights and public safety."
Even his CHATGPT agrees wit us.

 

My point was that we can discuss public safety, even if Bruen disallows it ( but it doesn't disallow all of it, as long as it has a historical perspective).

So, two things.
1. We can discuss public safety issues with respect to gun legislation if Bruen were not law, so, discuss it in the abstract.
2. We can discuss within the context of Bruen.

We can do both. This is a discuss forum, we are not legislators who must conform to Bruen

 

Was the paragraph accurate, or not?

Bruen does not exclude all public safety issues, as long as it has a historical context, correct?

Are you saying they are now going to allow guns in the halls of congress, and wherever there are presidential rallies and gatherings?

If not, this ruling's reversal will be the first order of business should we ever have a more liberal court.

I'm talking 'this is nuts'. Republicans are destroying the country and are a threat to national security.

 

I don't agree with you.

Yes, the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, it does not completely remove the federal government’s ability to regulate firearms. Similarly, while the Fourteenth Amendment applies these protections to the states, it does not completely remove the states’ ability to regulate firearms. The exact scope of these regulations and how they balance with individual rights is a complex issue that is often the subject of legal debate and court rulings. Bruen does not make all balancing tests inapplicable and unconstitutional.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...ges-find-supreme-courts-bruen-test-unworkable

For example, Judge Robert Miller Jr. — whom Ronald Reagan appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in 1985 — reluctantly applied the test to dismiss a case against someone who purchased a firearm without disclosing he was under a felony indictment. Miller’s opinion expressed “earnest hope” that he had “misunderstood” Bruen, because “f not, most of the body of law Congress has developed to protect both public safety and the right to bear arms might as well be unconstitutional.” He wrote, “It insults both [the] legacy of [18th-century Americans] and their memory to assume they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulating guns in new ways.”

If what you are saying about Bruen is true, then it must be reversed, It is insane.

 

yet I doubt public safety has much to do with most of those who want to push restrictive gun laws on those of us who own firearms. Public safety is merely a pretext and charade to hide the true motivations of the hard left gun banners

 

while I agree the second amendment does not completely remove the power of the federal government to regulate firearms-the tenth amendment should. the 1968 GCA is blatantly a violation of the tenth amendment and somewhat of the second.

 

Barring several of the pro-freedom (what you would call "right-wing" or even "crazy maga") Justices unexpectedly dropping dead while simultaneously having a D in the Oval, and 60+ in the Senate, that won't be happening for several decades, if ever. Any instinctually honest jurist would find merit to the decision, too, unless they take their personal political ideology determine what their rulings are, as it is linguistically, logically, legally, and most importantly Constitutionally the right call... Despite all the moaning and whining about a "well-regulated militia", a phrase that yous guys can't even define properly, those words are fairly meaningless insofar as the question of 'But what does this really mean??' inquiry.

Legislators can't really do jack spit about a SCOTUS ruling, short of reversing it with a Constitutional Amendment, but getting one that deletes or even just alters the 2A will prove impossible. So, it's really the inferior Courts that have deal with it. Unfortunately, there are no consequences for those Judges to ignore the USSC and act as though they were Kings, but they are not. So... Lets revisit this in, say, 5 or 10 years after all these cases have been fully adjudicated by the Supremes (and no, I don't mean the music group), and most gun control laws have been cancelled for being Unconstitutional. Because, simply, most current gun control laws do not have a 1791 equivalent the statists can point to in order to justify their infringements of my rights!

 

THIS is the crux of the matter, and the left is in a serious battle with multiple layers of self-delusion by arguing against it. The thinking goes "If we can just kick the can long enough to get a leftist dominated Court (which presumes that lefty Judges are not being intellectually honest in their rulings), that new Court will agree with us and reverse Bruen... Unfortunately, by the time that could even hypothetically happen, there will be so much case law on the topic, it will be very difficult for a future USSC to reverse it, even if they're otherwise inclined to. Not to mention that in order to do so, an on point case would have to appear on their docket, as Court's cannot just make random rulings on topics not before them. Not even the Supremes.

 

You never know. A very liberal president could add justices to the court, and there are a number of reasons outside of rebalancing the political leaning of the court for doing it, very valid reasons which will clearly reveal this necessity.

Yes, i see, so when the court rules according to your politics, they are 'honest' and when they don't, they are 'dishonest'.

Nice logic.

What are you talking about? there is rarely any dispute or confusion about what 'well regulated' meant in the late 18th century, it means a well disciplined militia, one that was trained and up to the task. Where do you get these bogus ideas?

Moot point, see above.

State legislators can make a law that appears to conflict and that law will stand until someone challenges it and SCOTUS shoots it down. The next candidate for president that supports expanding the court to correct it's inadequacies, I'm voting for.

Nah, states that want them will just come up with something similar, and wait till they are challenged again.

The second amendment per Heller only goes to the 'right', it does not go to the scope of that right, and even that is on shaky grounds because, in my view, Heller, having been decided strictly on party lines, and, in judicial terms, rather recently, is not a very strong precedent, and your entire second amendment philosophy rides on it.

 

"We" cannot reverse Bruen. Hypothetically, our legislators could pass a Constitutional Amendment, but the barriers for that are high (as they should be), and it won't happen, no matter how many of "we" support it. In consideration of the fact that a recent Harvard study concluded that 52% of American households have a gun (and that's just the ones that would admit such a thing to a pollster... I damn sure wouldn't, and I expect I'm not even close to being alone), and that includes 41% of Dems. Meaning that your desire to infringe on the rights of your fellow Americans isn't even all that popular within your own party!

So, your wishful thinking, is just that, and it's not gonna happen. Nor should it. My rights to defend myself trump your non-existent right to be scared of something that is none of your business.

 

Wow. You are genuinely scared witless by the thought of people around you being armed, yet I know that everywhere I go, many people are carrying, legally, and not causing any issues for the people of this State, even when you consider a permit is no longer required. Your hopes lie in a 'very liberal president', which is unlikely to get elected, at least if they're honest to us, doing something the President doesn't have the sole authority to do in the first place!

But I'm sorry to inform you that isn't gonna happen! You need to cheat, and you're not at all shy about suggesting it.

Hmm. I could have sworn I told you that I know I'm not going to agree with them all the time, but you don't find me posting thread after thread after thread after thread after thread crying about the ones I do disagree with. It's life!

I would ask if you had ever read what people have to say on that point online, but... Well... Here we both are. Without clinging to the thought that the 2A only applies to militias, "shall not be infringed" is the only useful (linguistically, meaning the intro phrase is legally meaningless) portion of the 2A, and it clearly says in black and white, "of The People..."

That's us. We are the people, and we are the ones with the RIGHT to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry, in public, whether concealed or not) applies to!

They can try! And some, most notably the most notorious rights infringing ones like NY, NJ, and CA are trying, but they're getting hit with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, and there are MULTIPLE cases in motion RIGHT NOW that will shut yous guys up once and for all. I expect the next significant USSC gun control case to essentially say, "We said what we meant, and we weren't kidding about it" when those cases reach them, and once that does happen... Game Over, you lose.
Everything you wish for and many things already in "effect" will be shot down, mark my words. And I will giggle my fat bottom off watching y'all lose your minds over it.

The right case with the right legal issues will be the death knell of all gun control in the USA, which is, of course, how the founders intended it in the first place!

Not with enough precedent on the books that says they can't. You see anyone passing anti-abortion laws before the Dobbs decision? I was in diapers when Roe happened, so I couldn't tell you if some States may have tried similar nonsense back then, perhaps, perhaps not. But if they did, after a year or three they gave up, because (or so I would suspect and expect) if they DID try, they just got shot down in Court so many times, they eventually learned.

Not at all. My 2A philosophy rides on both the phrase "The Right of The People to keep and bear Arms Shall not be Infringed", my own study of the Constitution, the men who wrote it, their life circumstances, and most importantly, the fact they had to take up arms to divorce their former government, so they wanted their ancestors (that's us) to be able to do the same should the need arise. Heller does make it easier, from a perspective of framing the argument from a "let's be real" perspective, but I believe that ALL humans have a right to the tools necessary for them to defend themselves, whether it's from a car jacker, home invader, mother raper, father stabber, some plain thug, OR a tyrannical government.

 

I actually doubt the bolded part in your well written post. I think what scares him is that lots of gun owners have called bullshit on 55 years of Democrats claiming that laws harassing honest gun owners is valid "crime control" and we vote against those who push that nonsense

 

Of course not.

The governments - federal and state - can regulate firearms however they want, so long as those regulations do not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It does. The decision literally says exactly that.
The text to that effect has been quoted to you several times; at this point it is clear you choose to not understand it.

Your opinion does not matter.

 

It most certainly does.
- The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
- The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
- A ban on "bearable arms", without respect to any standard of scrutiny, violates the constitution
- A legal requirement to secure firearms, without respect to any standard of scrutiny, violates the constitution
- Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history; It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Your opinion does not matter, and - most unquestionably - does not nullify the holding.
Until Heller is reversed, you do not get to ignore it.

 

You don't have to agree with me, you're still bound by Bruen and it says what it says.

Further: the 2a says what it says, and incorporation makes what it says apply to the states.

Miller is wrong, and I don't give a **** about Reagan who was a racist, senile, gun grabbing piece of **** who negotiated with terrorists.

You can amend the constitution. There are 2 ways. Better get started.

 

As stated: No, it wasn't.

Why? Because it holds as a public safety argument which beats the 2a any argument, period.
If it passes historic muster, its OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE 2a ergo it does not defeat the 2a because it does not interact with it.
That's a nuanced point that matters, and ChatGPT couldn't answer it and in fact concludes the other way.
Literally various circuits have barred the use of it in legal research, pleadings, or other actions. For good reason.
Read it yourself.

The 2a doesn't cover things with historic context commensurate with the founding, something you'd know if you read bruen.

Again demonstrating you haven't read Bruen.

Still stuck with it in the meantime, and that means consequences.

QQ more.

 

Nah, we don't have to amend the constitution, all we have to do is repeal Bruen, right after we appoint more justices to rebalance the court to sanity and plant someone, like Repubs do, to bring a pertinent case to the court, which is after Biden wins, steps down, and Harris takes over,, though I don't know if she has the moxy to do it. Someone will, eventually. Rebalance the court.

 

A number of judges are saying that Bruen is unworkable. "history and tradition' is vague, most judges are not historians, and someone with half a brain could have seen the issue coming, but not Thomas and the dullards on the right in the Supreme Court.

 

2A does NOT go to scope. only court rulings do that. heller narrowed it some, Bruen some more, and so the scope is narrow now, but Bruen is a terrible ruling. Judges are saying it is unworkable.

 

No one's opinions matter. The only opinions that DO matter are the 9 justices. But, that doesn't mean we can't debate it. The point being when you say crap like that your just pounding your chest, trying to gain some illusory posture, which is another way of saying you have made a meaningless point.

 

If by "unworkable" you mean "we can't restrict the right to keep and bear arms like we want to", then sure.

That is, after all; the entire point of the 2nd Amendment and the primary objective of Bruen.

That addressed...
Your opinion re: Bruen does not matter.
Heller...Bruen are there, they intentionally stop you from doing what you want, and you don't get to ignore them.