Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The decision in the first (yes, there is a second one filed) NYSRPA v Bruen case has been... 'disruptive' to the gun control agenda, to put it mildly. The opinion in that case was handed down a day before the one affecting Roe, so it's been pretty much ignored, but its impact is earth shattering for the world of anti-gunners.
Gun control laws are already falling at the state and federal level. We got news today of another law which is falling thanks to the Bruen decision - the question on ATF form 4473 (the background check form for buying a gun) which asks if you're under indictment has been ruled unconstitutional. The federal government can no longer infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights for a crime which you haven't been convicted of.
From the opinion:
Quote:
There are no illusions about this case’s real-world consequences—certainly valid public policy and safety concerns exist. Yet Bruen framed those concerns solely as a historical analysis. This Court follows that framework.
There will be more. Many, many more. All the traditional avenues for gun control to be passed have been closed. No more bans. No more limits. No more subjective criteria for exercising your rights. That's all going away, one law at a time.
If you're one of the gun controllers, get used to hearing the words, "text, history and tradition." Whether you realize it yet or not, those words are like an arrow through the heart of your agenda. There's no recovering from it. Your movement will have to find new life somewhere. Right now, it looks like they're going after manufacturers HARD, and they're exploring the idea of punitive taxation on both manufacturers and consumers, but don't get your hopes up too high about any of it. It's just desperation.
The reason is because up until now, the courts used a "balancing test" to determine the constitutionality of a law affecting 2A rights. The balance was between the Constitution as written and an interest in public safety. Bruen got rid of the balancing test. The courts can no longer base their opinions on policy concerns, and can only explore the "text, history and tradition" of 2A rights around the time the law was created - 1791 - to judge the constitutionality of such a law.
Were there many laws governing the acquisition, ownership and carrying of guns in 1791? Nope. Not many.
It is hard to argue for gun control when there is rising violence and innocent people are being hurt and killed by criminals.
We all know, well those of us with common sense, that the vast majority of shootings are carried out by criminals, gang members and the deranged that are using illegally obtained and held guns. The vast majority of law abiding citizen gun owners would never us their firearms in a criminal way.
It all boils down to the Democrats have made the streets unsafe with their soft on crime policies and people are afraid. People are tired of being victims and with the Democrats Defunding the Police they have left us without much choice.
No one wants to shoot anyone but when some loser is beating down your door to get to you for robbery, rape or murder it sure is a comfort knowing that you can defend yourself if you are forced to.
NYC here, I carried illegally for protection back in the bad old days and I’m about ready to do it a second time now that the wild bunch is free to kill once again. 2A is still the law. I don’t gaf what the mayor says. He’d probably give his police chief a secret fist-bump if another garden-variety-white-guy like me gets bumped off in a carjacking. Fk that sht. I’m ready to step up to the plate like Bernie G.
The irony of course is not related to any reason, excuse, justification, etc. about gun ownership. Instead, we are heading back to the Founding Fathers original intent of the reason and purpose of our individual constitutional rights.
For those who have read the Federalist Papers, you would know self protection, hunting, collecting, and so forth was a given in everyday life back then.
Thus the primary purpose of the 2A was to protect the Constitution from enemies, BOTH foreign & domestic.
California's "assault weapon" and standard-capacity magazine bans are doomed and Newsom and his cronies know it. All they can do at this point is stall, which is what they are attempting. Roger Benitez, the judge that ruled both the magazine and "assault rifle" bans unconstitutional (Duncan v. Becerra for magazines; Miller v. Bonta for rifles), will have no part of their stalling and in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, has demanded the state respond by October or November, IIRC. With any luck, that ban will be overturned next year.
I can't wait to see fully-functioning AR-15s and the like in our stores again. I might just buy a SCAR for the hell of it.
After that, we can go after the handgun roster (which is a complete joke) and get shall-issue CCW statewide.
If more law-abiding citizens were armed and could carry legally, crime would decrease.
Let the experiment run!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
