A win for the good guys (guns)

posted by queencitybuckeye

"shall not be infringed unless statistics show a likely bad outcome"?

The SCOTUS has weighed and considered "rights" over and over where one individual's rights are at odds or infringe on another person's rights.  They seemed to pretty clearly indicate that restrictions on open or concealed carry ARE subject to restriction, but that the NY law didn't pass muster.

They also said this is not about "militia".  And invited further cases to more narrowly define their ruling.

The SCOTUS has never said that regulations and gun controls are unconstitutional.  There is AMPLE room between where we are today and actual infringement.  This particular case seemed to deal specifically with an unequal/overly restrictive requirement for concealed carry.  I'm not sure if this case even took a position on concealed carry, just that if it's allowed then access to a license shouldn't be onerous or overly restricted.

posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

I agree. Those limitations on free speech sound be repealed also. 

posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

Precisely.  Context matters.  Property rights can certainly be at odds with someone's right to "bear arms".  It seems perfectly reasonable that guns are not allowed in court rooms.  It seems perfectly reasonable for a bar owner to ban guns from his establishment.

And often when weighing competing interests, the courts WILL look at statistics and public interest in determining which side to favor.

posted by Laley23

I am not taking a side here, so don't attack.

But isn't that exactly what the limitations on "Freedom of Speech" has done? Saying bomb at airport/airplane, 'Fighting Words', etc.??

Not really. In the case of the New York gun laws, one had to prove that their right to carry had a specific purpose. That is far different than there being a small number of reasons that one CAN'T say something.

It would be like "Mr. Laley, we understand that you want to assert your right to free speech. Please submit what you are planning to say, and we'll get back to you to grant or deny permission".

posted by queencitybuckeye

Not really. In the case of the New York gun laws, one had to prove that their right to carry had a specific purpose. That is far different than there being a small number of reasons that one CAN'T say something.

It would be like "Mr. Laley, we understand that you want to assert your right to free speech. Please submit what you are planning to say, and we'll get back to you to grant or deny permission".

I’m not talking about the NY Law. I’m talking about restrictions on our rights since the Constitution and BOR was enacted. They absolutely have been restricted, so saying it’s not a question just because it’s a right isn’t a valid argument.

posted by queencitybuckeye
The part I don't get is why it matters Even if a right yields a net negative to society, it's still a right.

I mean... thats kinda counter productive to every tenet of a functioning society and evolution in general, no?

posted by kizer permanente

I mean... thats kinda counter productive to every tenet of a functioning society and evolution in general, no?

Perhaps, but the point of the BOR is that those rights aren't ours to give or deny. They come from a higher power (and no, it doesn't matter what one's specific belief is as to what that higher power is).

posted by queencitybuckeye

Perhaps, but the point of the BOR is that those rights aren't ours to give or deny. They come from a higher power (and no, it doesn't matter what one's specific belief is as to what that higher power is).

True… 

Would you say that’s a good thing though? If your constitution was detrimental to survival? At what point would you change it? I get we can’t empirically say it is as it’s nuanced. But just as a hypothetical. Would you be open to abandoning certain rights? 

posted by kizer permanente

True… 

Would you say that’s a good thing though? If your constitution was detrimental to survival? At what point would you change it? I get we can’t empirically say it is as it’s nuanced. But just as a hypothetical. Would you be open to abandoning certain rights? 

Since this is a 2A thread, I'll answer your question for that one with a resounding "OH HELL NO". I can't imagine a yes for any of the BOR.

posted by kizer permanente

True… 

Would you say that’s a good thing though? If your constitution was detrimental to survival? At what point would you change it? I get we can’t empirically say it is as it’s nuanced. But just as a hypothetical. Would you be open to abandoning certain rights? 

What if monkeys fly out of your ass?  Our Constitution is the framework for a country that went from a group of backwoods farmers to the most powerful country the world has ever know  in less than 200 years.  It's obviously not detrimental to survival.  

posted by superman

What if monkeys fly out of your ass?  Our Constitution is the framework for a country that went from a group of backwoods farmers to the most powerful country the world has ever know  in less than 200 years.  It's obviously not detrimental to survival.  

A bit has changed over the time period, eh? 

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/road-rage-shooting-stemmed-from-columbus-driver-honking-at-car-police-say/

posted by kizer permanente

A bit has changed over the time period, eh? 

If it aint broke, dont fix it

posted by kizer permanente

A bit has changed over the time period, eh? 

And a lot of that change was made possible by the freedom we delivered.  

posted by superman

And a lot of that change was made possible by the freedom we delivered.  

Thank you for the freedom you delivered Superman.  God bless.

Georgia is FKN crazy. A road rage incident caught on camera in Woodstock, where a driver ended up firing 14 shots in a car next to him. pic.twitter.com/cml0pu6juB

— Everything Georgia (@GAFollowers) July 3, 2022

Tough day for the good guys in Highland Park.  

Another shooter known to police. In a state with all sorts of gun restrictions and red flag laws. Weird.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Tough day for the good guys in Highland Park.  

We were going to be at that parade. But my 1 year old daughter slept in, and her typical nap schedule didn’t align for the day. My wife was then going to take just our 3 year old son, but he wanted to play with his friend across the street. 

She is still shook up. 

And then today the zoo we go to gets closed for a situation and armed police swarmed the place (yet to be determined what actual issue was).

Fox news is now blaming Marijuana for mass shootings.  Hilarious