A federal appeals court on Friday struck down parts of New York's controversial concealed carry law but upheld most of the ban on carrying guns in "sensitive places."
It's staggering they keep pushing against the only natural rights that's been codified with "shall not be infringed".
Seems pretty clear that all laws limiting anything that is considered a weapon would be unconstitutional.
And before all the BS arguments flow in:
Automatic weapons existed when the constitution was written.
Cannon are still legally owned.
At the time the Constitution writing, entire ships with rows of cannon were in private possession.
Do you really think the framers were stupid and couldn't forsee the development of greater and greater weapons? Why else would they write it this way, considering they'd just been attacked by their own King.
If you disagree with any Thin I've said, I can only think you haven't read enough of the history of the time, to understand they didn't see themselves as rebels (that's a label we've applied), but as loyal subjects of the crown and were being treated like second-class citizens.
It’s staggering they keep pushing against the only natural rights that’s been codified with “shall not be infringed”.
What is the number one cause of death for U.S. children right now? It's gun deaths.
The U.S. has a gun problem. That's why there is pushback. We need gun control because the current situation is not working, and is leading to unnecessary deaths.
Didn't you get corrected multiple times at this point? I feel like you've had repeated conversations, and you somehow always forget them the next day. It's not just guns either, it's a lot of things.
Ironically not all weapons are protected by the 2nd. Hunting weapons are not protected. Weapons for war are protected. Why do I get tired of the, who would hunt with an AR-15 argument? The 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
We don't agree on a lot but I'm forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15's and the like.
The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.
In a 261-page ruling, the three-judge panel struck down a requirement that gun owners disclose their social media accounts for review when applying for a concealed carry permit.
Yeah, no. The government doesn't need to be in your social media. Imagine if they required that for voting?
The court also blocked restrictions on carrying firearms on private property that is accessible to the public,
That should be up to the private property owner.
as well as a restriction on concealed carry in houses of worship.
That should be up to the church.
I get the Democrats hate freedom, but many of these should be decided by the property owner. If you don't want firearms on your property, so be it, but that is your choice and not the government's.
However, controversial parts of the law remain intact, including a requirement that applicants demonstrate good moral character and disclose household and family members on a permit application
Define good moral character. I would like to understand the second part better. If that is to block felons or other people, I am fine with it.
I am also for punishing politicians who create blatantly unconstitutional laws. It is amazing how often laws like this are passed even though they are obviously unconstitutional.
I carry almost every time I leave the house as I cross into a blue area where it's unsafe. Until Democrats want to get back to law and order, I will make sure I am appropriately protected against the crime.
As an aside, what would guys think of having a day for memes? Like Meme Monday or Freedom Friday or something. And maybe not just memes, but pretty much anything, so long as it isnt anti-conservative? Hell, post music and comedy bits.