-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
first you just assured its a 2nd amendment violation, that's the entire point, where are you getting that?
have you read heller, mcdonald or bruen and how they interpret a 2nd amendment test? you can just assert that. that's not how legal arguments work. you have to base it on past cases, and i'm specifically arguing past cases explicitly endorse this legislation (Not saying this court won't just change their mind).
and searching social media has been used by courts in all kinds of cases and it completely ignores case law on privacy (chiefly the seminal "expectation of privacy" case Smith v. Maryland which is a direct analog to the pen registers in that case).
The last is potentially a stronger argument but there this isn't restricting speech, the speech is still said. its just looked at for its probative value at the persons propensity towards violence. there is of course a potential chilling effect but that's a tough call and is highly dependent on the guidelines set out speech is to be looked at.
I'm not going to get into this at 2:45 in the morning. Especially since both of us obviously support this legislation and very much want it to stay in place. I get where you are coming from, but you and I both know this will be overturned for the usual reasons.
I never said it was fair that it would be overturned. I only explained why it would be.
this case was a way for the court to say to the states, the presumptions ON YOU to prove why a citizens should be denied. not the otherway around (prove you need the gun).
Kavanaugh explicitly points this out in a concurrence
Alito specifically says this about restrictions:
That's not to say I believe these guys won't change their mind or "well actually" in any future case but it does allow lower courts to uphold this law.
So all the talk of "this is clearly unconstitutional" is just opposed to what two of the deciding votes explicitly broach as permissible.
its the idea that its "clearly unconstitutional" that irks me. NYS legislature read Bruen
Kavanaugh explicitly points this out in a concurrence
Alito specifically says this about restrictions:
That's not to say I believe these guys won't change their mind or "well actually" in any future case but it does allow lower courts to uphold this law.
So all the talk of "this is clearly unconstitutional" is just opposed to what two of the deciding votes explicitly broach as permissible.
Again, I don't disagree these people are lying sacks of shit. But there's no reason liberal courts below them can uphold any they punt on these actually hard questions (which they never did, even in heller). The court doesn't want to explicitly say you have to let people bring them to church or on the subway, they want these wider ideological statements the states enact and the courts can walk away going "well we never answered that, so don't blame us and if you want us to specify? remember we never have to take any case"
its the idea that its "clearly unconstitutional" that irks me. NYS legislature read Bruen
Like I said. Not getting into it. If it holds up then hell fucking yeah. Lets copy and paste that shit to every state that we can. But it won't stand. They will weasel their way out for all the reasons I stated.
Agree to disagree.
I mean we can. but your making no argument and just asserting things and seemingly ignoring how these cases are herd and how they make their way to the supreme court (what courts they have to go through, venue, jurisdiction, etc.)
My argument is the actual letter of the law for the 2nd amendment part of the bill is irrelevant thanks to the makeup of the court and that the other two I mentioned have a genuine case to be overturned as well due to their possible violations of privacy and speech despite the fact that I wholeheartedly support it
If you don't agree then like I said. Agree to disagree. Its too late for this kind of thing for me. I get too heated.
NYC really has been on another level lately.
Just this week:
news.yahoo.com
For anyone who may not realize what a big deal this is: the current Democratic Mayor of NYC has asserted on television, and doubled down, that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani should be probed by the NYC DA and prosecuted. Him just going on TV and saying that is a pretty big deal.
I don't know much about Eric Adams other than he was extremely unpopular among the left when he was running for Mayor. But y'all, please pay attention to this moment, because this is the exact "Do Something!" energy people beg for from Democrats, but when they do deliver it...crickets.
Just this week:
NYC Mayor Adams doubles down on push to probe Rudy Giuliani for falsely reporting a crime
NEW YORK — Mayor Eric Adams stepped up his assertion that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani falsely reported a crime, likening Giuliani’s recent assault allegations to the notorious “Central Park Karen” saga in which a white woman accused a black man of threatening her and was later charged with filing...
For anyone who may not realize what a big deal this is: the current Democratic Mayor of NYC has asserted on television, and doubled down, that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani should be probed by the NYC DA and prosecuted. Him just going on TV and saying that is a pretty big deal.
I don't know much about Eric Adams other than he was extremely unpopular among the left when he was running for Mayor. But y'all, please pay attention to this moment, because this is the exact "Do Something!" energy people beg for from Democrats, but when they do deliver it...crickets.
Before he was mayor, he was a cop for three thousand, four hundred and thirty-seven years. Only a man who was a cop for nine hundred thousand years like Eric Adams was could do this. He's also the only guy who can find the cocaine that Rudy keeps in his normal high school backpack.NYC really has been on another level lately.
Just this week:
NYC Mayor Adams doubles down on push to probe Rudy Giuliani for falsely reporting a crime
NEW YORK — Mayor Eric Adams stepped up his assertion that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani falsely reported a crime, likening Giuliani’s recent assault allegations to the notorious “Central Park Karen” saga in which a white woman accused a black man of threatening her and was later charged with filing...
For anyone who may not realize what a big deal this is: the current Democratic Mayor of NYC has asserted on television, and doubled down, that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani should be probed by the NYC DA and prosecuted. Him just going on TV and saying that is a pretty big deal.
I don't know much about Eric Adams other than he was extremely unpopular among the left when he was running for Mayor. But y'all, please pay attention to this moment, because this is the exact "Do Something!" energy people beg for from Democrats, but when they do deliver it...crickets.
Seriously though, I bitch about the government in the City and State all the time but they been doing ok lately.
OP
OP
You praising Eric Adams is not something I had on my bingo card :PNYC really has been on another level lately.
Just this week:
NYC Mayor Adams doubles down on push to probe Rudy Giuliani for falsely reporting a crime
NEW YORK — Mayor Eric Adams stepped up his assertion that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani falsely reported a crime, likening Giuliani’s recent assault allegations to the notorious “Central Park Karen” saga in which a white woman accused a black man of threatening her and was later charged with filing...
For anyone who may not realize what a big deal this is: the current Democratic Mayor of NYC has asserted on television, and doubled down, that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani should be probed by the NYC DA and prosecuted. Him just going on TV and saying that is a pretty big deal.
I don't know much about Eric Adams other than he was extremely unpopular among the left when he was running for Mayor. But y'all, please pay attention to this moment, because this is the exact "Do Something!" energy people beg for from Democrats, but when they do deliver it...crickets.
...uh, I don't know if I'm praising him exactly? Am I? lol
I'm woefully behind in NYC politics; I really don't know much about Eric Adams or the job he's doing. I just saw this news story and thought, "Fuck yeah throw Rudy's ass in jail!"
But, irrespective of the job he's doing, Adams' posturing here is notable because it's the exact type of thing people claim they want from Democrats, but they're never paying attention to the Democrats who regularly take the fight to Republicans. I've ranted about this before.
OP
OP
I mean, I think you and I know why that is but that's neither here nor there.
I do hope this starts waking up more dem people in a post roe world.
It will be interpreted as such, sure, but the "well regulated militia" is enough to destroy any hope of universal consensus amongst legal scholars as to whether the application of 2A is clear.
SCOTUS and other conservative judges are trying to will their own interpretation into popular accepted opinion.
In which case how much value is there in accelerating that process and allowing Republicans to skip the years it takes for their cases to make their way through the courts? Is imposing relatively small positive changes to laws in states we control worth opening the door to massive negative changes in those we do not, a door that conservatives have shown they will kick open if left even barely ajar? Is it correct to put our allies in red states at more risk than they already are? Ultimately I don't think the math works out in our favor, while it should be clear to all that American federalism is on its last legs it's not in our interest to take steps to kill it faster
Rural areas already flaunt laws their constituents disagree with.
It's about time to start fighting back.
The opinion also says that the category of "sensitive places" can't be too broad.
I think this largely happens because folks expect them to do something, so they won't praise it because it's expected. I'm guilty of this myself at times.
Last edited:
Y'all can cool it with the "the Supreme Court will strike this down so who cares" tripe, we fucking know. So do the Dems who drafted this piece of legislation. The whole purpose of this is clearly to send a wider message that Dems need to start fighting fire with fire, regardless of how successful they may be. It's time for the gloves to come off and elected Dems need to start getting way, way more aggressive.
Hopefully more blue states follow.
Hopefully more blue states follow.
Looks good but I agree that it will eventually be struck down. It's a good strategy though. Keep on passing or trying to pass shit. Even if it's pointless. Force them to constantly have to defend themselves. The cons futilely tried to pass obamacare repeal dozens of times. Over and over again. It seemed ridiculous but It kept their base excited and motivated to vote. That could work on the left but the dems usually shrug and give up. They need to be active and vocal and actually start showing some leadership for once.
The same posters spend most of their time screaming "DO SOMETHING!!"
When something actually gets done, they just find new ways to doompost.
Also, they said this about every batshit abortion law that laid the groundwork for todays insanity. The entire, successful Trump strategy was to just do whatever you wanted and get the courts to figure it out months or years later. Dems gotta play the game.
The problem is that this strategy doesn't work as well for Dems because judges are often more Conservative than not. So laws like this are more likely to have an injunction placed on them and eventually ruled unconstitutional than Conservative policy and laws.
I'm not saying Dems shouldn't do this, they should, but the tactic doesn't work as well for them.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Blue states are essentially the ones keeping the country running.
OP
OP
Need more of this "fuck you then" energy.
They need to follow Texas and make a law that allows anyone to sue someone for owning a gun.
They need to follow Texas and make a law that allows anyone to sue someone for owning a gun.
Yes. I wanted Biden to do all of this and more at federal level instead of "decorum" and other shit. Let it go through the buzzsaw of rightwing supreme court. At least by then we would have saved a few lives until the injunction happens.
This time it's double space, Times Neat Roman, and there's a Works Cited page.
Anyway, this is wonderful. Maybe dems will grow spines instead of being closeted Republicans.
Some people just want to complain. You do something? Complain. You do the opposite? Complain. Some just want to live in that kind of vicious, circular cycle for whatever reason.
It's certainly a bold strategy. I've thought that states should just enact legislation defining what "arms" is. Since it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution that means it should either (based off recent SC precedent) a) be interpreted as what it meant when the amendment was created, ie single-shot, muzzle-loaded weapons, or 2) up to the legislative to define.
What happens if NY ignores SCOTUS and proceeds with gun confiscations and arrests of people violating NY rules?
Theoretically? Nothing. SCOTUS does not have the mechanism to enforce its rulings.
NYC would have to be sued by the state (I think?).
It's crazy because a friend and I were just talking about this. I think we're heading to a point where states are gonna start telling the SCOTUS, "What are you gonna do about it?" on both sides of the spectrum.
Yep. These people are doing the GOP's job for them in left leaning communities like this one and it's super annoying. We don't need people dragging us down, we need people sticking to the fight. No room for demoralization within your own ranks.
The bits I could see getting struck down are the places of worship line due to first amendment reasons (they're private establishments plus there's that one AR-15 worshipping cult) and the review of social media accounts. I find the latter kinda sus as a principle though I don't really know the details on this and I'd rather have the former officially fought in court anyway. lfg
Then I think there's a situation where both the people getting their guns confiscated and the people phyiscally doing the confiscating know it's against what the SCOTUS says. In that scenario, I think the deep red parts of NY simply wouldn't follow the state gov't while the more blue parts would have serious resistance from their police departments (who definitely don't vote blue). And maybe we see how serious some people are about the "my cold dead hands " shit talking.
This needs to happen more for Blue states. Do something, try to push boundaries instead of absolutely nothing. Even if it gets strike down eventually, it keeps the conversation going with the voters. Instead, right now, the news is always about the new stupid shit the Red states are trying to push while the rest do absolutely nothing.