- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
I wished I could carry a gun in Bongland; I will have to stick to this spoon for self defence.
Supreme Court Watch
- Thread starter tehpope
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2020
But do you have a loicense for that m8?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Shall-issue isn't that, though. It simply means that if a person applies for a CCW or whatever, the license should be issued unless there are good reasons it shouldn't be, e.g. crazytown or convict.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
I know that. What I'm saying is that even if you don't need a permit to carry, not having one and/or not knowing your state and local laws can get you in trouble.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2019
No it wasn't. The SC saying "Constitutional rights don't actually apply to blacks because reasons" is just as clownshoes retarded and politically biased as "Banning abortions is basically an unconstitutional search and seizure because reasons".
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2022
Driving is a privilege, not a right (althogh given that driving is a necessity in mich of this country, that needs to be reformed to some degree. The devil is in the details. Allowing a marksmanship requirement allows pernicious government actors to use it as a pretext.
They will use at home versus in public as a way to damn up all gun owneship.
Some regulation, but not marksmanship requirements, other things that can be used as pretext.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2022
That is an incredibly simplistic characterization of Dred Scott. Dred is problematic in its legal reasoning but it did (correctly) acknowledge that legally slaves were property, under the Constitution and various state laws. The problem is that it then discerns a bar against blacks ever getting citizenship, striking down Missouri Compromise etc. In that sense it does have a bit of Roe to it.
Edit-id suggest there is better reasoning in discerning that blacks are not and cannot be citzens under the Constitution and laws AT THE TIME than it is to pull abortion rights out of a hat like a rabbit. But is moot and I wish Roe would be moot after tomorrow but it will be even more pressing.
I suspect that the DNC refrained from codifying Roe in some sort of national abortion law to use its overturning for fund-raising, talking points in campaigns, etc....
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
And unironically, if you even do know the laws, some states, like New York, will prosecute you anyway.
Dred Scott was also stated in such inflammatory and insulting terms, essentially enslaving white people and obliging them to engage in returning slaves to their "owners," that it was a shot across the bow and almost deliberately caused the Civil War. It's hard to say it was Constitutionally wrong, since it brightened the flaws in the Constitution into sharp relief.
After all, if it was so obviously wrong, why did they need three separate Constitutional amendments to overrule it? Like it or not, the finding was consistent with the Constitution of the time, which needed three separate amendments to make it wrong again.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
100% agree. I do not like training requirements because of the ease of abuse to effectively deny people access to the permits, but I do believe every single person who owns a gun should take a concealed weapons course whether they plan to ever carry it or not. The courses aren't really about how to use guns but rather about when to use them and most people have no clue at all about what is appropriate defensive use of a firearm. Even I myself had misguided thoughts that were tempered by my instructor, but it was clear that a lot of people in the class were struggling to accept that things were a particular way instead of how they thought things ought to be. The laws are very state and locality dependent and not something you're likely to find out or understand on your own. At the very least you need someone to point out to you what the law says and how it's been used against people before.
Ultimately, when you carry you have an obligation to avoid confrontations and need to understand that you're carrying to defend your own life, not playing the role of hero. Lots of people don't respect that and get themselves in trouble.
I really think FFLs should be advocating for people to take defensive gun use courses. In my experience I almost never hear it being suggested to people, even in stores that offer the classes themselves.
namelesstacotruck
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
Whats stopping New York from requiring a permanent bond of 100k to be given to the state "to pay for any potential victims of fireaem violence"
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Public schools should teach responsible use of cars and firearms, the two most dangerous things most people have a reason to use.
The fact that it's the equivalent of a poll tax, something also found unconstitutional. Imagine New York imposed a 100K bond for the right to post on the Internet that anyone with a job in Albany sucks wet farts out of dead pigeons.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
As nice as that sounds the reality is that public school firearms education looks like this:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2020
This ruling basically just forces NYS to go from a 'may-issue' to 'shall-issue' system, which is still good, but they will keep all the absurd hoops you need to jump through.
Legally obtaining a gun- particaurly a handgun- was basically impossible without connections because you can only purchase one with a CC permit, which the state makes incredibly hard to get.
To get one, you needed to undergo a background check, cough up around half a grand in fees , obtain references from people who know you and have lived in the state X many years (so tough titties if you just moved there and already own firearms), and then wait roughly a year for someone to actually get around to processing it all. This will also probably all remain in place, even with this ruling,
The kicker was, after all this, if you gave the wrong answer as to why you wanted a firearm, they could (and would) deny you. Basically, if you wanted one for any reason that wasn't hunting or sports shooting, you better know somebody. You couldn't just lie either- if you said either of these reasons, they would expect you to be a member or a club or lodge with persons and documents (remember the references requirement?) that could prove it.
Of course, if you knew/paid the right people you could very easily get around this.
A lot of the people who will complain about this are going to be more upset they lost a political bargaining tool and source of income than over any kind of ideological concern.
Legally obtaining a gun- particaurly a handgun- was basically impossible without connections because you can only purchase one with a CC permit, which the state makes incredibly hard to get.
To get one, you needed to undergo a background check, cough up around half a grand in fees , obtain references from people who know you and have lived in the state X many years (so tough titties if you just moved there and already own firearms), and then wait roughly a year for someone to actually get around to processing it all. This will also probably all remain in place, even with this ruling,
The kicker was, after all this, if you gave the wrong answer as to why you wanted a firearm, they could (and would) deny you. Basically, if you wanted one for any reason that wasn't hunting or sports shooting, you better know somebody. You couldn't just lie either- if you said either of these reasons, they would expect you to be a member or a club or lodge with persons and documents (remember the references requirement?) that could prove it.
Of course, if you knew/paid the right people you could very easily get around this.
A lot of the people who will complain about this are going to be more upset they lost a political bargaining tool and source of income than over any kind of ideological concern.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2020
My tin foil hat tells me they'd love Roe to be overturned so they can use it as a "rallying cry!" They'll keep delusional women in the dark about their gender bender tranny bullshit by making them hysterical about abortions. Democrats don't give a shit about women's rights, but if it makes them vote blue out of fear, all the better. They'll sit on their hands like they always have, and cry fake crocodile tears.
Their TECH billionaire campaign contributors will be thrilled, too. As much as they love the idea of dead babies, what they love even more is the idea of all those poor unwanted children they can troon out in the future.. and all those future desperate impoverished women willing to whore themselves out on tech apps to feed their unwanted children. They want to push the legalization of prostitution hard, and impoverished women are more likely to turn to that for money. Dial-a-whore apps, here we come! The money for STEMlords will be rolling in! Normalize pedophilia and Prest-O, billions of dollars! Dial-a-baby for pedophiles! Rolling in cash!
What if they develop some "fetus saving tech" that can perma-freeze unwanted fetuses, thereby avoiding technical abortion? STEM companies can claim "parenthood" and "adopt" these fetuses as their children. Then they'll have more raw human material to experiment on! Woo-hoo! All the possibilities to create the ubermensch, or the perfect breed of docile human slaves!
Oooh! And what about all those woke young women who will be even MORE desperate to troon into men once abortion/birth control is unavailable in their state, or to be WILLING to "donate" their uteruses to transwomen, or to sell their uteruses on the cheap to troons?! There's another BILLION dollars!
The prediction I feel is the most likely to happen. Once Roe V Wade is overturned, tech companies will push transhumanism super HARD. They'll push it under the guise of "reproductive choice for womb-havers". It will be some kind of technology-based implant like an IUD. They'll make it seem like a "choice". Dems will benefit because these are the same companies funding their campaign coffers.
IUDs are already implanted foreign bodies, so they'll just create super high tech versions of IUDs-- and they'll sell it HARD to women who are petrified at the "loss of abortion rights!" This would include devices that track and record women's sexual habits, collect women's biological data for sale to companies, collect GPS data on women, etc, while claiming to actually "do good". Notice all the idiotic women who've been using "period apps" for years-- they've been giving tech companies data about their intimate physical processes because they think these companies are benevolent or kind. I was always skeptical of such "helpful apps" because the user is obviously the product. It just goes to show you how so many of us can be delusional and naive when it comes to technology and how "helpful" it is. Nothing is free.
Keep in mind many of these transhumanist companies want to replace women with artificial wombs and robots. Women are "old technology" to them. We are not people to them, just "holes with uteruses" and "meat puppets". Transwomen are the True and Honest Women.
They LOVE the idea of selling "anti-rape/birth control tech" to women. They know hysterical women will line up and CONSENT to having electronic devices/tech transplanted into their bodies if the fear of rape babies and unwanted pregnancies becomes real enough. Just think of it-- wouldn't Gates, Zuck, and other STEM sociopaths just LOVE the idea of "womb havers" using some kind of "tech" to control their reproductive choices? It would be a total BOOM for the normalization of transhumanism-- forcing/coercing humans to introduce technological devices into their bodies.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2019
I find it incredibly ironic that we've seen more gun liberties being restored under the Biden administration than the entirety of Trump's, especially considering how hard they keep trying to push anti-gun legislation. First bump stocks and the latest is this.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
It's because of the Trump justices, but yeah. Really funny that we're getting more conservative shit done now (too bad about the looting of the economy though)
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2016
Could this be why the gun rights decision was released first?
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2019
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
"I'm robbing you! Give me all your money, bitch!"
"Ha ha!" *minigun go BRRRRR*
"Ha ha!" *minigun go BRRRRR*
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2021
Driving is not a right enshrined in the constitution with the words “shall not be infringed”.
- Status