The Second Amendment

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member


media%2FFV-wJgWUIAAaz4Q.jpg%3Fname%3Dsmall


Edit.

 

Mike_Key

Woodpecker
Why did the Gay Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges; Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) case reach far and wide across 50 states and likely 5 territories, but this 2A ruling from NY States remains in and only affects New York?

Because of Globo-homo?

Or another reason?

Please advise.
Thx in advance.

John 3:16
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Why did the Gay Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges; Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) case reach far and wide across 50 states and likely 5 territories, but this 2A ruling from NY States remains in and only affects New York?

Because of Globo-homo?

Or another reason?

Please advise.
Thx in advance.

John 3:16
You don't seem to understand how this works or dont realize what you are saying.

It doesn't only effect New York.

It provides precedent for all states to challenge any restrictive laws regarding conceal carry and the right to self defense.
 

Sabonis73

Robin
Catholic
Why did the Gay Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges; Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) case reach far and wide across 50 states and likely 5 territories, but this 2A ruling from NY States remains in and only affects New York?

Because of Globo-homo?

Or another reason?

Please advise.
Thx in advance.

John 3:16
Yes, Globohomo is the reason. The Dems and the Republicans take orders from organizations like the W.E.F, which serve to fulfil the ambitions of families like the Rothschilds, Soros and others. Many of whom wear the little hat. They do not acknowledge the laws of any sovereign nation. If the Globohomo believe that a ruling within a nation is beneficial to their goals, they allow it. If it isn't, they fight like demons to stifle the implementation of the law or ruling, no matter how they look.

My previous post had a rundown on how New York and other states that had similar laws will be affected.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/bruen-faq
 

Mike_Key

Woodpecker
You don't seem to understand how this works or dont realize what you are saying.

It doesn't only effect New York.

It provides precedent for all states to challenge any restrictive laws regarding conceal carry and the right to self defense.
And also to @Sabonis73

So you are saying definitively that if someone in California or Maryland applies today for a conceal carry they will receive it the next day - like Gay people were immediately marrying?

You are 100% certain about that?

Or will the Circuit courts have to confront cases (not arriving for months and taking 6 months to settle) for those 4 or 5 States that are anti-2A?

John 3:16
 

C-Note

Hummingbird
Other Christian
Gold Member
The DoJ appears to be threatening that they will not comply with the SCOTUS decision.

Democrats are angry because the SCOTUS just killed their momentum on gun control. They may get the red flag law passed in Congress this year, but this ruling kills future attempts to restrict handgun ownership. It's a big win for the people.

We'll likely see an intensified assault on the SCOTUS by the globalist media, like this. What that article doesn't say is that conservatives don't have complete confidence in the SCOTUS either because John Roberts sometimes cucks-out on some of the important decisions.
 
Last edited:

Thomas More

Crow
Protestant
The DoJ appears to be threatening that they will not comply with the SCOTUS decision.

Democrats are angry because the SCOTUS just killed their momentum on gun control. They may get the red flag law passed in Congress this year, but this ruling kills future attempts to restrict handgun ownership. It's a big win for the people.

We'll likely see an intensified assault on the SCOTUS by the globalist media, like this. What that article doesn't say is that conservatives don't have complete confidence in the SCOTUS either because John Roberts sometimes cucks-out on some of the important decisions.
Now the DOJ will probably also say they will fight the overturning of Roe v Wade. Hopefully they will have so many positive SCOTUS cases to defy that they will be thrown into chaos.
 

Sabonis73

Robin
Catholic
And also to @Sabonis73

So you are saying definitively that if someone in California or Maryland applies today for a conceal carry they will receive it the next day - like Gay people were immediately marrying?

You are 100% certain about that?

Or will the Circuit courts have to confront cases (not arriving for months and taking 6 months to settle) for those 4 or 5 States that are anti-2A?

John 3:16
Like what @get2choppaaa said, it will give the other court cases in other states the legal standing to knock down "may issue" rules. In a healthy environment, the states would see this and drop the laws immediately as it would be a waste of time and resources. If you live in ones of the "may issue" states like me, you're going to have to wait a little longer(6mo-yr) while lower level cases back up the Supreme Court decision in each state. These cases are already in motion.
 

Mike_Key

Woodpecker
Like what @get2choppaaa said, it will give the other court cases in other states the legal standing to knock down "may issue" rules. In a healthy environment, the states would see this and drop the laws immediately as it would be a waste of time and resources. If you live in ones of the "may issue" states like me, you're going to have to wait a little longer(6mo-yr) while lower level cases back up the Supreme Court decision in each state. These cases are already in motion.
Thanks for the reply.
I can see that being the process and I'll be grateful for anything.

I guess President Trump couldn't have EO'ed the right (Constitutional carry) and then the SCOTUS re-enforced it, because RBG was still on the court. But, if that were possible a few years ago, it would have been a strong statement to the World and for 2A men and women in the USA.
Edit:
(Obama EO'ed everything and the courts backed him up, mostly - Even AZ couldn't defend their border. Trump tried to defend the USA border broadly and Oregon and the Courts fought back)

We'll take what we can get. Although I hate that we have to wait as second class citizen. Wussification of the USA still exists (a la R. Limbaugh, RIP).

John 3:16
 
Last edited:

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Thanks for the reply.
I can see that being the process and I'll be grateful for anything.

I guess President Trump couldn't have EO'ed the right (Constitutional carry) and then the SCOTUS re-enforced it, because RBG was still on the court. But, if that were possible a few years ago, it would have been a strong statement to the World and for 2A men and women in the USA.
Edit:
(Obama EO'ed everything and the courts backed him up, mostly - Even AZ couldn't defend their border. Trump tried to defend the USA border broadly and Oregon and the Courts fought back)

We'll take what we can get. Although I hate that we have to wait as second class citizen. Wussification of the USA still exists (a la R. Limbaugh, RIP).

John 3:16
Current supreme court has been bad on a lot of issues... But the one thing they've been delivering on is guns so far.

What Trump could or couldn't have done via EO is less consequential to what Supreme Court's precedent establishes. So ultimately on this issue, the courts were right.

Thomas even cited that removing self defense created a disparate impact towards minorites (nice flip of the Republicans are rascist card) and mentioned an inherent right to self defense extending beyond just the home.

This was a good thing and a common sense win for Americans.

If you still live in a state with retarded laws...leave.
 

JoeChill

Woodpecker
Protestant
Gold Member
"Well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulation of the sale/distribution of guns to people. The term actually meant a militia that was properly equipped. We can examine discussions during the Continental Congress, where the term “well regulated” is used in reference to the making the American army "a well regulated army" (Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 9, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774);
Resolved, As the opinion of this Congress that it is essential to the promotion of discipline in the American army and to reformation of the various abuses which prevail in the different departments, that an appointment be made of inspectors general, agreeable to the practice of the best trained European armies:
Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on vigilant and experienced general officers, who are acquainted to whatever relates to the general economy, maneuvers and discipline of a well regulated army.
To review from time to time the troops, and to see that every officer and soldier be instructed in the exercise and maneuvers which may be established by the Board of War: that rules of discipline are strictly observed, and that officers command their soldiers properly, and do them justice.
These and other documents of the time make it clear that when referring to either the militia or the army, “well regulated" meant a militia or army that was properly organized, equipped, drilled, disciplined, and ready to fight. The term was used in conjunction with outfitting a militia or army, training an army or militia through drilling and instruction to prepare them for battle, and making sure officers were trained in tactics and maneuvers that would enable them to direct the militia in battle. In this context, "well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulation of the sale and distribution of firearms to individuals. This interpretation makes the most sense since there weren't any laws restricting the ability of American citizens to purchase and possess firearms during the late 1700s and throughout most of the 1800s.

Indeed, we see that White male citizens were expected to own their own firearms. The Militia Act of 1792, passed May 8, 1792, provided standards for the organization of the Militia.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act….
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."
 
Top