Law Supreme Court hearing first 2nd Amendment case in a decade

[tinker_190]

I wish they would get of the 2nd Amendment
it's outdated.

Look at the history of the 20th century and onward. It is more relevant than ever. This is like saying Free Speech is outdated.

 

[Happy Man]

Something something Obama's coming for muh guns.

2nd amendment is an outdated piece of the constitution and if you are against background checks and keeping guns out of mentally unstable hands then YOU are the problem. Fact is most republicans are racists and bigots and are scared of their own shadow but drape themselves in the 2a to feel safe from all the gays,blacks,and muslims out to "get" them
Bunch of hateful pussies

lol and I get Dubbs!

carry on......

 

[Swing]

The law was repealed exclusively as a way to avoid what New York City viewed as an undesirable ruling.

Obviously any Court would object to such blatant political maneuvering to avoid their judicial review.

That doesn't really answer the question.

 

[HockeyBjj]

That doesn't really answer the question.

It's also a way to prevent an erroneous law from popping up against right away. You don't get to pull something because someone had the audacity to challenge it, wait a year, then propose something similar again and just see if someone goes through the effort or not

Think southern states and heartbeat abortion bans. It'd be like a challenge to a heart beat ban going to the Supreme Court, the pro life state of Georgia rescinding their law so as to not get an unfavorable ruling that says that's against roe V wade precedent that prevents heart beat abortion bans or any say before 3rd trimester bans

So to keep states being able to make heartbeat or at least 2nd trimester bans, they keep pulling back offending laws before the case hits the SC desk.

 

[Officer Rick]

All this post is missing was something about Trump. You had it all.

its not about him its about public safety but nice try

 

[Officer Rick]

0/10

Spoken like a true alt account

sweet reply on topic and all .. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000/1000000

 

[Officer Rick]

lol and I get Dubbs!

carry on......

because i posted on topic and made a coherent point vs what you do

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

All this post is missing was something about Trump. You had it all.

wrong. he forgot to mention transgenderism, being woke, how white people are inherently racist...actually he forgot a helluva lot of bullet points.

 

[BEER]

Edit: Hey I can edit again!

Double edit: Am I completely missing something? Where's the delete button?

 

[Swing]

It's also a way to prevent an erroneous law from popping up against right away. You don't get to pull something because someone had the audacity to challenge it, wait a year, then propose something similar again and just see if someone goes through the effort or not

Think southern states and heartbeat abortion bans. It'd be like a challenge to a heart beat ban going to the Supreme Court, the pro life state of Georgia rescinding their law so as to not get an unfavorable ruling that says that's against roe V wade precedent that prevents heart beat abortion bans or any say before 3rd trimester bans

So to keep states being able to make heartbeat or at least 2nd trimester bans, they keep pulling back offending laws before the case hits the SC desk.

I get the idea and don't particularly have a problem with the why, but I'm still curious about the how.

Is someone actually going to argue on behalf of the repealed law? Can they demand that someone do that? Are they simply going to deliver an opinion? If so, what does hearing the case really entail?

I'm wondering how often this scenario even comes up.

 

[HockeyBjj]

because i posted on topic and made a coherent point vs what you do

I'm sure that's why your name is yellow right now rofl

Anyways, glad Supreme Court is finally taking a 2A case even if it's a softball that'll have little movement on the overall trend being pushed out by certain states and NY tried to slyly avoid this knowing they made an unconstitutional law and not wanting the consequences of that.

 

[Gregolian]

Edit: Hey I can edit again!

Double edit: Am I completely missing something? Where's the delete button?

I think the War Room hasn't had a delete button for awhile.

 

[Stoic1]

I agree the GOP would gladly arm people who have severe mental illness if they really had their way.

Considering the left has a mental illness I can see how they would see firearms as dangerous and need to be controlled/restricted/banned.

But do the right wing posters here believe that people who have severe mental illness should be able to own firearms?

Hold on.

Let me check something.



We want to follow the law and the Form 4473. Do not sell firearms to the mentally defective - which for our purposes here is defined by your statement of "severe mental illness".

The distinction is that "we" do not want the government to be able to restrict ownership based on say, seeing a mental health professional. Or perhaps post partum depression. Or a whole host of other inroads that the left WILL use to justify curtailment of rights that are not easily distinguishable under arbitrary labels. It is the continual errosion that we see across the board on many Constitutional guarantees that the "right" will continue to champion while the left is using every opportunity to destroy the Bill of Rights.

tl/dr: You wrong.

 

[Stoic1]

I wish they would get of the 2nd Amendment
it's outdated.

How do you feel about the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments?

Do we really need them at all?

 

[Officer Rick]

I'm sure that's why your name is yellow right now rofl

Anyways, glad Supreme Court is finally taking a 2A case even if it's a softball that'll have little movement on the overall trend being pushed out by certain states and NY tried to slyly avoid this knowing they made an unconstitutional law and not wanting the consequences of that.

im yellow because i didnt proofread. my post and should have left part out.
but your non post and your buddies continued non posts added 0 to the thread
All i want is stricter background checks and keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill
anyone should be able to pass a background check. I own like 13 guns i dont mind getting a license for them like the one for my vehicle. whats the big deal?
and no one should take anyones guns away (unless the aforementioned mentally ill or other disqualifying etc) I own an M&P sport 2 and no ones taking my baby away

 

[BEER]

I think the War Room hasn't had a delete button for awhile.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

Makes sense!

 

[Fawlty]

It's also a way to prevent an erroneous law from popping up against right away. You don't get to pull something because someone had the audacity to challenge it, wait a year, then propose something similar again and just see if someone goes through the effort or not

Think southern states and heartbeat abortion bans. It'd be like a challenge to a heart beat ban going to the Supreme Court, the pro life state of Georgia rescinding their law so as to not get an unfavorable ruling that says that's against roe V wade precedent that prevents heart beat abortion bans or any say before 3rd trimester bans

So to keep states being able to make heartbeat or at least 2nd trimester bans, they keep pulling back offending laws before the case hits the SC desk.

Is that actually a thing, or is that speculation?

Edit: Hey I can edit again!

Double edit: Am I completely missing something? Where's the delete button?

Always happy to see a fella off dubs. The right to bear posts shall not be edited.

 

[Fawlty]

ed. dbl

 

[BEER]

Always happy to see a fella off dubs. The right to bear posts shall not be edited.

At least we can agree on something.

Edit: JK we're both libtards.

 

[tinker_190]

im yellow because i didnt proofread. my post and should have left part out.
but your non post and your buddies continued non posts added 0 to the thread
All i want is stricter background checks and keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill
anyone should be able to pass a background check. I own like 13 guns i dont mind getting a license for them like the one for my vehicle. whats the big deal?
and no one should take anyones guns away (unless the aforementioned mentally ill or other disqualifying etc) I own an M&P sport 2 and no ones taking my baby away

Did you see how restrictive the NY laws in question are? The titular ones, I mean. They were so restrictive that, in my subjective opinion, they were trampling on the rights and liberties of NYC residents. Given what you have just admitted, beyond your request on background checks (let's hip pocket that discussion for now), surely you could see that these laws impede the free exercise of said rights.

Also you should swap out your rifle to match your avatar