Courthouse Steps Decision: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s handgun licensing law that required New Yorkers to demonstrate a “proper cause” in order to be granted a license to carry a pistol or revolver in public. The petitioners, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, were denied licenses to carry a firearm in public after listing their generalized interest in self-defense as the reason for seeking the license. New York denied their license application because a generalized interest in self-defense failed to satisfy the state’s proper cause requirement. Both men sued, claiming that New York had violated their Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in doing so. A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade.
Featuring:
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
source
The 2nd Amendment FOR DUMMIES:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
1. “Well Regulated” = Well Equipped/ Proper working order.
2. The Militia = You
3. The People = Militia = You
4. to Keep = in possession
5. To keep and bear arms = in possession and hold your firearms.
6. Shall not be Infringed = Don’t fuck with my gun rights.
"The Roberts court is an incremental court. It's not about massive leaps forward". Pretty ironic to hear that knowing when you fast forward to the next day and Dobbs v. Jackson overturns Roe v. Wade, rescinding a right for the first time in American history. Justice Roberts says in his concurrence that he did not see the need to overturn Roe and believes the court moved too quickly in doing so.
Very interesting.
Great discussion. Thank you.
Great presentation.
Ryan, please fix your audio. Using that distant microphone in that hollow room makes your audio quite mushy, excess bass, and very hard to understand.
And the SC’s ruling actively being subverted by NY legislature before the ink war dry.
I dont understand why court didn't apply history from 1791 to first restrictions at federal level as history time span to match.
Before 1791 history is no guide as the historical practices were considered bad necessitating the enumeration of the right to clearly state the United States would deviate intentionally from history (kings taking arms from people).
Treatment of arms in the hands of slaves are all unconstitutional as is slavery. Similar all restrictions on women are unconstitutional likewise (as not represented before woman's suffrage).
Leaving the historical comparison period undefined allows jim crow laws being used to justify gun control now.
I would assert that the NFA cannot by any means survive "text, history, and tradition" scrutiny.
That level of scrutiny just gutted a law that predates the NFA by decades.
Isn’t the common use test itself an empirical approach?
Experts 🤣😂🤣more like indoctrinated. U.C.C. 1-308 All right reserved with extreme prejudice.
To bear means to carry,wield, use.
All gun control laws and enforcement of said laws (background checks, licenses, permits, bans, weapons (gun)free zones,red flag laws)are crimes under title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights, title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law, title 5 U.S.C. sections 3331,3333,7311 perjury in violating oath of office/swearing false oath which is treason and a felony under state and federal law.
Licenses, permits, and background checks are unconstitutionally illegal.
To keep means to buy and have.
All Americans are protected under the second amendment of the constitution of the united states of America including felons and mentally ill, nowhere in the second amendment does it say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms except if someone says otherwise.
Gun free zones are unconstitutionality illegal,all citizens and every square inch of the united states of America is protected under the second amendment of the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land.
Cannot use historical or common use, before 1934 all guns including machine guns were historically and in common use.
The courts job is to enforce citizens rights (liberties) not balance them.
No citizen is bound to obey any gun control laws.
All judges, district attorney's who enforce any form of gun control should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted for high treason and corruption of justice.
The text explicitly states shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it say common use or lawful purpose in the second amendment supreme law of the land.
Historically
All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void. Marbury V. Madison 5 US (2nd Branch)137,174,176(1803).
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879).
A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercedes all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury V. Madison 5 US 137(1803).
The US supreme Court
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment… In legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonett V. Vallier, 16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886).
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights.
If two or more person's conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution or laws of the united states, or because of his having so exercised the same…
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years; or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section, or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Or laws means laws that do not violate the constitution of the united states of America.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states…
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years;or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
A policy is a custom.
Laws means constitutional laws.
The second amendment the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be Infringed.
Murdoch versus Pennsylvania no state shall convert a right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it
If a place is sensitive enough to ban weapons then it should be required to have security in place to ensure no one can enter who may be concealing a weapon. Like airports that have a security check point with metal detectors where upon entering the sensitive area a person can be confident that only law enforcement will possess weapons. This should be the requirement to limit concealed carry in “sensitive” places. If there is nothing but a law and a sign banning weapons the sensitive place is not more safe it actually makes it less safe because the law abiding individual will not have means to protect themself or others around them from people intending to do harm. Criminals do not follow laws or abide by signs they will take advantage of those laws and target those areas knowing that the law actually benefits them by the government disarming citizens who would normally be able to protect themselves and others around them.
How can you say “prohibited possessor” with a straight face when the second amendment clearly says, “shall not be infringed”. That certainly sounds like an infringement. Don’t infringe me, bro
Ps. Any judge that said may issue is constitutional needs to be disbarred and jailed, if not tarred and feathered.