Warren is on the warpath against the second amendment again

See NYSRPA v Bruen. Balancing tests are not how it works.

The fact you have to ask is hilarious. Go re-read your post I quoted from and think real hard, ok friend?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Question has an assumed premise.

If it is a rhetorical question, then you'll need to substantiate your claim.

 

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd is no longer subject to means-end testing; any argument you make to that effect is null and void.

 

Why don't you have the same complaint about autos, driving, license, registration, tax, lots of stuff that should annoy a fellow like you, eh? Why the beef about guns?

 

who is trying to ban cars.

 

Bruen doesn't negate any public safety argument, we can still discuss public safety, if only in the abstract, there is no rule against it. .

Bruen is just a ruling legislators now must abide by.

I'm not a legislator, and there is still such a thing as public safety, whether the justices on the right, or yourself, like it or not.

If public safety is any kind of good idea, and, in my view, only a insane person would think otherwise, it think it is fair to discuss it, debate it. And that doesn't mean I'm not mindful of the tug of war between public safety and undue burden.

 

So, your casual disregard for public safety gun policy equals 'infringing on rights' speaks volumes.

 

No one.

Now answer the question.

But, of course,. you won't, you'll do strawman, dodge the question, or deflect in some manner.

Got it.

 

Bruen is crap anyway and a liberal court will reverse it.

I"m just debating public safety in principle, really. If it Bruen doesn't like it, I'm not a legislator and
it's not my problem.

That doesn't mean we can't debate public safety in the abstract, (yeah, that's not in your wheel house) insofar as fire arms and the second amendment.

 

The court disagrees with you:

(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. 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. Pp. 9–15.

Your "public safety argument" is a means-end test.
As the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd is no longer subject to means-end testing; any argument you make to that effect is null and void.

 

Yes.
It means I understand and respect the role of the constitution and the bill of rights with regard to "public safety" - that when the bill of rights conflict with "public safety", the bill of rights wins out.
You, willfully, do not.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, specifically protected by the constitution.
The privilege your state grants you to drive on public roads is... not.
You can only choose to not see the difference.

 

Your admittedly ignorant and hyper-partisan opinion, above, does not allow you to ignore it; you can choose to do so it but it negates any idea you argue with any degree of intellectual honesty.

 

He pretty much covered it.

 

Go google the video and you tell me how it worked chief. The video, not chatGPT.

My tenure here predates my legal career by a few years. Use the wayback machine and you tell me.

 

nothing democrats push is related to improving public safety. It's all about harassing people they don't like and punishing people who they blame for opposing leftist social issues such as abortion, gender confusion and the gay rights movement

 

Literally not how it works.

 

Yes, due to the fact that an unbalanced court will indulge in fanciful excesses of the right wing, they dream up incompetent rulings like the Bruen decision.

Bruen did not say that public safety will no longer be a factor when legislating, though it narrowed it's scope. .

But the fact that legislators must now defer to Bruen does not 'negate' my comment:

That doesn't mean we can't debate public safety in the abstract, insofar as firearms and the second amendment.

 

Absolutely yes it did. You are very much wrong, and it tells me you have not read Bruen.

For God's sake: Are you asking CHATGPT about it? You realize ChatGPT has been caught making up rulings right? Just read the ****ing thing yourself.

Muh public safety arguments? Are balancing test arguments. Balancing tests? Strictly prohibited here.

 

You tell me, you're the one who knows 'how it worked'.

 

Your admittedly ignorant and hyper-partisan opinion, above, does not allow you to ignore Bruen; you can choose to do so it but it negates any idea you argue with any degree of intellectual honesty.

This statement has been proven false.
You repeating it will not change that.

You can espouse your opinion of the relationship between the right to keep and bear arms and public safety in the context of a fantasy world that does not exist all you want
Said espousal has no application to the real world, and thus means absolutely nothing.

 

Are you saying ALL public safety arguments are 'balancing test' and can't be used? But, if there is historical precedent, they can be used, right? And if that is true, and I think it is, then my statement, which you said was wrong, was, indeed, correct

You say 'don't use ChatGPT', okay, tell me if the following is wrong:

Post-Bruen, a public safety law related to firearms that would not involve a balancing test would be one directly rooted in historical tradition from the time of the Second Amendment's inception. For instance, if a contemporary law mirrors historical regulations that restricted the carrying of firearms in sensitive places like courthouses or government buildings, it would likely be upheld without a balancing test. This is because such regulations can be directly linked to analogous laws or traditions from the late 18th century. The key factor is the historical precedent, not a modern assessment of the balance between gun rights and public safety.

​

 

Well, we can shift the debate or should or shouldn't.

I'm arguing that Bruen is wrong, and we should use public safety when legislating. To my way of thinking, to do otherwise is insane.


In principle, it's still a valid argument, if we agree to argue in the abstract.

There is no law or rule that says we must conform in principle arguments to practical reality.

And, in principle, it would mean something, and further illustrate just how insane Bruen is.

Which, is my point.

Moreover, I believe my statement was correct, that your argument doesn't negate the fact that Bruen does not explicitly rule out public safety, it just NARROWS it's scope (requiring application in historical precedent, which is ****ing nuts).

 

You choose to not understand what you are told.
Bruen, literally, negates any argument for the use of means-end testing with regard to the constitutionality of a restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
All of your "public safety" nonsense boils own to a means-end test.

 

You can espouse your opinion of the relationship between the right to keep and bear arms and public safety in the context of a fantasy world that does not exist all you want
Said espousal has no application to the real world, and therefore means absolutely nothing.

Thus, any argument you make in this regard is adequately addressed with a "that's nice", a pat on the head, and a chuckle.