Second Amendment

Can Senseless Gun Regulations Be Constitutional?

New York City’s successful defense of its arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns highlights judicial disrespect for the Second Amendment.

|

New York's uniquely onerous restrictions on transporting guns were so hard to justify that the city stopped trying. Instead it rewrote the rules after the Supreme Court agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to them, and now it argues that the case is moot.

Despite the obvious vulnerability of New York's regulations, the city successfully defended them for five years, obtaining favorable rulings from a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. That track record highlights a glaring problem the Supreme Court could address if it rejects the city's mootness claim: More than a decade after the justices recognized that the Second Amendment imposes limits on gun control, lower courts routinely treat the right to keep and bear arms as a minor hindrance that can be overcome by the slightest excuse.

Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns, even if they were unloaded and stored in a locked container separate from the ammunition, unless they were traveling to or from one of seven gun ranges in the city. If a New Yorker wanted to practice at a range, participate in a competition, or defend himself at a second home outside the five boroughs, the only legal option was to buy (or rent) additional handguns.

The justification for those seemingly arbitrary restrictions was always hard to fathom, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no one's idea of a Second Amendment fanatic, noted during oral arguments on Monday. "What public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one," she wondered, "and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that therefore [is] more vulnerable to theft?"

Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, was stumped. "Petitioners have identified a difficult application of our former rule that wasn't really contemplated when the rule was adopted," he said.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Dearing if New Yorkers are "less safe" now that the city has loosened its restrictions. "No, I don't think so," Dearing replied. "We made a judgment, expressed by our police commissioner, that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule."

In that case, Alito wondered, "what possible justification could there have been for the old rule, which you have abandoned?" Dearing again had no good answer, except to say that it was a bit easier for police to verify that a gun owner was on his way to or from a range on Staten Island, as opposed to a range in Yonkers or New Jersey.

Restrictions on fundamental rights usually pass muster only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest—in this case, preventing gun violence. But as the gun owners who challenged New York's rules note, "The only 'evidence' the City has ever mustered to support the tailoring of its policy is an affidavit from a former commander of the state licensing division hypothesizing, with no evidentiary support whatsoever, that the mere presence of a handgun—even unloaded, secured in a pistol case, separated from its ammunition, and stowed in the trunk of the car—might pose a public-safety risk in 'road rage' or other 'stressful' situations."

That implausible scenario was enough to persuade the 2nd Circuit. In the appeals court's view, the city's assertion that the transport ban was necessary to protect public safety—a claim it has now disavowed—outweighed the plaintiffs' "trivial" interest in using their guns for self-defense outside the city or in honing the skills required for that constitutionally protected purpose.

Such casual disregard for the right to keep and bear arms is plainly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment. That's why the city is so desperate to prevent the justices from considering an argument that was good enough until now.

© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: "Broke Ass Phone" Wins Right to Have Commercial Sign With Its Name

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

    Check here =====►► Read More

  2. I feel I must point out again that the purpose of the democrats is human control, not gun control.
    Those fascists want to run your life.

    1. For your own good….

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” CS Lewis

      1. In fairness we are all being treated as infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals and part of the reason why is because that’s how a lot of people want to be treated and it’s how central governments view their populaces as well.

        I mean, look at college campuses and students today and wonder how many of them would laugh at God in the Dock as a comedy.

      2. I’ll also paraphrase Ann ?Coulter: muggers are more honorable than politicians. They won’t demand that you thank them when they steal your money.

        1. That’s an interesting viewpoint. I agree. When all the legal citizen-owned guns are sufficiently secured under government control they will likely turn to door and window locks to make criminal life easier. Of course the easiest criminal life is to be a legislator after your second term.

      3. Username recalls my 2nd year HS Latin class. How long indeed?

    2. The most frightening part is gun control was predicated on stopping minorities from being able to defend themselves or rise up after the civil war, yet democrats claim to be the party of minority rights.

      1. And they think that “rights” include entitlement to free shit.

        1. You have no understanding of what the rest of the free democratic world calls society.

      2. Nah, the most frightening part is the self-appointed role the righteous nannies claim in managing all human behavior, forcing us to conform to their ideals, with at best a fig-leaf of democratic support.

      3. More and more Americans are beginning to see that the Democratic party is really anti-democratic.

    3. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the neofascist party formerly known as the GOP.

      1. Well, Bobby, you can hold any opinion you choose. You don’t need to be rational.

    4. Worse than the Christian Taliban?

  3. NYC brought this on themselves, and thus have opened the Pandora’s box they have so often vexed.

    Now if only someone like Willett instead of Ginsberg were on this court.

    1. The USSC brought this upon themselves, and most specifically Robert’s, by refusing to defend the McDonald or Heller rulings from these appeals courts that blatantly ignored the rulings. It has been 10 years since a gun case was accepted. Robert’s just turned away the manufacturer culpability lawsuit. John Robert’s is a fucking coward who cares more what wapo or the NYT think of him than what he truly believes the law is.

      1. I think that’s an accurate assessment, to the extent it isn’t too kind to Roberts.

        Refusing the lawful commerce case was just so chickenshit that I’ve lost any lingering respect for the man. What happened to him?

        Which doesn’t leave our prospects very good here, does it? Probably will take replacing RBG, too, to get a real 5-4 majority on gun cases again.

        1. My main issue with Roberts is he wont defend the few “tough” (based on politics) he has made and basically allows his rulings to become toothless by not taking up appeals to slap down lower courts. The other issue is his saving constructions that neither side likes but does it in response to editorials in major liberal newspapers. He is a coward with no conviction. His main goal, by his own admission, is caving to Democrats to try and not present the courts as political. But he is in such a bubble he doesnt realize caving on rulings to save political face is in fact political.

          1. “But he is in such a bubble he doesn’t realize caving on rulings to save political face is in fact political.”

            I think he realizes it. But he also realizes which side is willing to make his private life hellish if he offends them.

            It’s not like rulings WE dislike are going to result in mobs camping out on his front lawn, or people screaming in his face when he tries to eat out or go to the movies. We’re too civilized to behave that way, the other side isn’t.

            So the other side gets wins in order that his peaceful life not be disrupted.

            1. The lesson, as usual, is: terrorism works

        2. >>What happened to him?

          believe the hype, become caricature.

  4. Bingo: Most of the judiciary treat this right as though it was a privilege, and a disfavored privilege, at that.

    The only way to stop that is for the Supreme court to stop tolerating it. And this NYC case would be a good vehicle for doing that. A good, old fashioned judicial curb stomp is in order here.

    The problem is that most of our political class share that attitude, even if the half of them running as Republicans don’t dare come out and say it, and the federal judges, including Supreme court justices, are chosen accordingly.

    So we’re actually doing good at this point to have a bare majority who aren’t on board with utterly abolishing the right.

    1. NYC is a progressive haven. But, I can assure you that the reason for the restrictive gun laws is that the government cannot fathom the prospect of over 2 million black residents being able to legally purchase firearms. I’ve spoken to my fair share of people involved in NYC politics, as well police officials, and … off the record … this is by far the preeminent concern.

      “It would be a fucking massacre. There would be murders every night. These animals can’t control themselves.”

      And that was from a black cop.

      1. Ubiquity/availability of abortion is has similar motivations.

        1. It’s hard to ignore that the stated reason for planned parenthood by it’s original proponents, that being thinning out the black population, has been wildly successful at that stated goal.

          But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence since they love to say that has nothing to do with it anymore. It just somehow still accomplishes the original goal with their new intentions.

      2. No, urban areas as a whole are much more progressive than the rural areas. And guess where almost all the population growth is… The only way the GOP survives the next decade is to cheat its way into office.

        1. Regressive. Even cheating won’t save the GOP. True that with population growth and density increase, and since the higher the population density the more likely to vote left, eventually the left (the Democrats) will control all three branches of the federal government. They’ll have free reign to enact full-strength all of their economic and social idiocy unchecked by the right.

          The result will be a Chilean scenario with dose of Northern Ireland and Vietnam mixed in. The rural counties will be right wing “sanctuary” counties and will refuse to enforce certain state and federal laws. There will be economic chaos, rural areas will be in revolt, cutting off the cities. When the lefty government tries to purge the military or order them to enforce federal law against the rural people in violation of possé comitatus, the military will mutiny and join the rural rebels. The situation will be similar to Chile under Pinochet.

    2. Most of the judiciary treat this right as though it was a privilege, and a disfavored privilege, at that

      Disagree. They treat the 2A as if it is NOT fully incorporated by the 14th to apply to the states as well. Which is legally true. And imo will always BE legally true.

      The SC is probably going to take the occasional case that incorporates/clarifies/expands etc the ‘right to self defense’. There is not a chance in hell that they are going to incorporate the 14th in order to interpret the ‘right to common defense’ as an INDIVIDUAL right that cannot be infringed. No competent judge would ever do that. And anarchist libertarians are just gonna have to accept that reality.

      re the specific wording of 2A – my guess is that they are going to use ‘keep arms’ as the self-defense component to be incorporated and ‘bear arms’ as the common defense component that will not be incorporated to apply to the states even though it obviously applies to the feds.

      1. And by ‘anarchist libertarians’ I actually probably mean ‘neoconfederate libertarians’ since most true anarchists obviously aren’t DeRp at all and don’t expect anything from judges – but the neoconfederate libertarians are totally DeRp.

        1. Of course, pairing ‘anarchist’ with anything else is patently absurd but you do you.

          If you call yourself an anarchist libertarian, it means you’re just an anarchist but you don’t really want to be labeled as such.

          1. Fine. then neoconfederates it is

            1. Well now I gotta know, what do you even mean by ‘neoconfederate libertarian’? Libertarians for confederations of states as opposed to ‘federal libertarians’ for a centralized federal state that sits above it’s constituent states?

              I honestly can’t tell.

              I also don’t really see how you could partially incorporate Federal constitutional amendments in part as opposed to in whole. They either apply in whole, or they don’t apply at all…

          2. Anarchists: becoming communist since 1848

            1. Anarchists, as it turns out, don’t give a fuck about what ideology they pair themselves with as long as that ideology is trying to destroy some shit.

              That’s why it’s laughable when people try to slash the term with other ideologies. You’re either an anarchist, or you’re fucking not.

              Also we shouldn’t be surprised when someone who uses anarchy with a slash suddenly isn’t an anarchist anymore when they achieve the other half of their moniker. You only have anarchy in your title when you haven’t yet achieved your preferred result.

              I should also say a true anarchist is so rare that functionally it doesn’t exist.

              1. “Anarchists, as it turns out, don’t give a fuck about what ideology they pair themselves with as long as that ideology is trying to destroy some shit.”

                Nah, you’ve got to distinguish between actual anarchists, (David Friedman, for instance.) and idiots who heard the phrase, “Bomb throwing anarchists”, and thought, “Cool, I get to throw bombs!”

                Most of the “anarchists” you see protesting and being reported on are just communists who decided “anarchist” sounded better.

      2. “”Disagree. They treat the 2A as if it is NOT fully incorporated by the 14th to apply to the states as well. Which is legally true. And imo will always BE legally true.””

        I don’t get it. Either the Bill of Rights applies to the states or it does not. Nitpicking which of rights apply is bullshit.

        1. It’s not nitpicking. The 14th amendment created federal protections for INDIVIDUALS. It did not eliminate states. Incorporation is merely the requirement that the states are as limited as the feds are some specific provisions in the Bill of Rights. Asserting that states themselves cannot decide what is the common defense because that is an individual right = eliminating the states.

        2. Here is your homework for the weekend so that you may “get it”. Learn about State’s Rights and Federalism. The state you live possibly has their own Constitution that includes a bill of Rights and it overrides the US Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights which are permanent part of that document. Your state however can pass or force just about any law on you and restrictions and regulation. Only when a federal law is broken does the Bill of Rights come into play. If you are the lawbreaker and can afford an 8 figure attorney fee then you can challenge away! You might even get an opinion from a justice at the supreme court which really is not a court and does not make laws and it is opinions until tried in court again with someone else.
          I will come back here and read what you have found and you will not be happy what you find but you will not be confused any longer. Those other amendments are exactly that and are meaningless as well. The Rule of Law is not. Tons of prisoners in private prison do slave labor for many companies including AT&T and Microsoft. Prohibition still exists in its original form and drug laws were started from racism 100 years ago and are billion(s) dollar business for your electorate ( I bet you hate “tweakers”)… etc etc And try to wise up the rest of these chuckleheads on this page that calls itself reason.

    3. The problem is Kavanaugh looks to “history and tradition” when interpreting the BoR, and even the most pro-2A states like Texas heavily regulated handguns outside the home for decades. Plus conservative icons like Ronald Reagan believed a proper rationale for signing gun control legislation was because scary black men with guns were making him pee his pants. 😉

      1. The black men who were monitoring the bad guys in their neighborhood which you call “police”. The Blacks were tired of their children being beaten daily by police. So Reagan banned open carry and the media dubbed the Blacks “militants”. Watts was not a riot but a revolt, both times and Blacks have more balls that whitey. But that is a ways away from Oakland which is a long way from the South where Oakland hired their police from.
        Who needs the Bill of Rights interpreted?? The courts, where tyranny is and has been for many years.

        1. Your raging contempt for our beloved Constitution is noted.

          Who needs the Bill of Rights interpreted??

          YOU DO.
          Based on your ignorance of what it says.

          NINTH AMENDMENT: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          Incorporating Jefferson’s unalienable rights into the Constitution, there are baic, fundamental rights, never mentioned in the Constitution, that no level of government may deny or disparage.

          Tell is what those rights are. All of them. Do not skip any

    4. The only way to stop that is for the Supreme court to stop tolerating it.

      There’s another way, which is for the PEOPLE to stop tolerating it.

      -jcr

      1. This is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

  5. The “compelling government interest” behind gun control is “we enlightened progressives fucking hate gun owners”. And they think that’s a quite good enough reason.

    1. It isnt just gun owners.

    2. As I commented above, the motivations for such laws are far more debased than just hating gun owners. NYC elites do not want its two million black residents being able to legally purchase firearms. For them, the prospect of an armed black populace is literally a doomsday scenario.

    3. Justice Scalia says you’re wrong, in his Heller ruling.

      1. Hihntard, still having trouble reading? Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Most assuredly not.

        1. How to kick the ass of a lying guntard PUNK — a DISGRACE to the honor pf the USMC.

          Hihntard, still having trouble reading? Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Most assuredly not.

          (sneer)
          ABSOLUTE PROOF … Scalia’s Heller ruling … that VinnlUSMC IS A LYING SACK OF SHIT, totally lacking in honor or integrity..

          https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

          This will launch ENRAGED SCREECHING by brainwashed guntards.
          For PROOF they ate FULL OF SHIT, Includes ACTUAL TEXT of the ruling … linked to the SCOTUS web site … with page numbers for each cite … IN MAYBE FIVE MINUTES YOU WILL SEE PROOF — WITH YOUR OWN EYES … they are unwitting tools of the political elites …. no better than the cult of Alexandria Olivio-Cortez

          AGAIN, THIS WAS SELF-DEFENSE …. FROM AN UNPROVOKED ASSAULT … .BY A DISGRACE TO THE PROUD AND NOBLE VAST MAJORITY OF THE USMC
          With page numbers

          (How many WHINY PUSSIES will sneer that I just linked to my own
          comment … TRUE … but click the link to see, with your own eyes, how PSYCHO they atte/

          1. Hihntard-

            Go DIAF, you lying, senile sack of shit.

            /Everyone

            1. (Posted in self-defense of an unprovoked assault … by a crazed gubntard …. A PSYCHO WHO REJECTS ABSOLUTE PROOF HE IS TOO FUCKING COWARDLY TO READ … because in-con-b=veeeeeeen-yent facts.) (snort)

              This will launch ENRAGED SCREECHING by brainwashed guntards.

              For PROOF they are FULL OF SHIT, Includes ACTUAL TEXT of the ruling … linked to the SCOTUS web site … with page numbers for each cite … IN MAYBE FIVE MINUTES YOU WILL SEE PROOF — WITH YOUR OWN EYES … they are unwitting tools of the political elites …. no better than the cult of Alexandria Olivio-Cortez

              Check the proof. “Entropy Drehmaschine Void” made a public ass of himself.
              (sneer)

          2. Using a whole lot of caps and hurling insults does not make your point. Though I am curious why you seem to hate freedom and the concept of the free and independent individual so much.

            The Miller decision protects the right to own weapons related to militia service. That would include semi-auto versions of the M16 and others.

            Regardless of what any government writings might say, there is a natural right to own what one pleases so long as one does not initiate or threaten to initiate force upon others.

  6. This sort of dropping cases solely when thinking they may lose needs to end. It is a constitutional abuse of our systems. We have this in criminal cases as well where prosecutors dont want to set a precedent against favored actions that make them money (the number if civil forfeiture cases dropped before appeals trials is astounding). If government ever seeks to dismiss at appeals the law should be deemed repealed based on prejudice. Keeping a non constitutional law on the books by playing these mootness games is frightening. It shows willing admittance to violating citizen rights.

    1. I’d argue that the courts should still decide based solely on the inconvenience to the person who brought the suit. If you spent a year fighting the govt on something like civil asset forfeiture and, right before your case, the government “caves” — that’s still a year you had to spend fighting against an unjust action.

    2. Prosecutors should also be forbidden from dropping charges. If they charge someone, those charges must be brought to trial if not settled. I would also say that the sentences from acquitted charges should be deduced from the guilty charges, and if they come out negative, the defendant is paid the difference. This would also require the prosecutor to include his desired sentence for each charge, and for the jury to consider that.

      1. THREE dictators in waiting! ONE thread.

  7. I haven’t read the article yet, but i just wanted to say that the lead photo is absolutely the best post-mortem pic of RBG i’ve ever seen. I mean, she almost looks like she’s alive!

  8. If you’re having trouble convincing RBG that a gun control law is reasonable, you’re really off the deep end.

    1. And yet multiple courts have defended this law and many other gun control laws that are just as bad. Roberts is a clown.

      1. I don’t know why he thought caving on Sebellius would protect his legacy and not just make him a comically lame punching bag. Everybody knows he responds to pressure now.

  9. The obnoxious part of this is regulations on abortion — such as the person performing it must be able to get a patient into a hospital if something goes wrong — are struck down as being too onerous. But these rules were peachy for years.

    SCOTUS caused the problem. If they were half as strict about Heller violations as they are on Roe ones, you’d not have these situations.

    1. I wonder if racism is the rationasle behind these jurists’ diosparate treatment of Roe in contrast to Heller.

      They uphold gun control laws because they are afraid of being mugged by a black man, or getting caught in a drive-buy shooting by black gangbangers.

      They support abortion rights because they want their teen daughters to have access to an abortion in case they get impregnated by black men.

      1. Reagan signed blatantly unconstitutional gun legislation when scary black men started walking around with guns.

      2. I wonder if racism is the rationale behind these jurists’ diosparate treatment of Roe in contrast to Heller

        The racism is YOURS ,.,. .and SHAMEFUL …. compounded by your ignorance of the principle underlying BOTH Heller and Roe

        They uphold gun control laws because they are afraid of being mugged by a black man, or getting caught in a drive-buy shooting by black gangbangers.

        Your ignorance of Heller is documented here: text, link and page numbers
        https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

        They support abortion rights because they want their teen daughters to have access to an abortion in case they get impregnated by black men.I’ll dumb it down as far as possible.

        1) EVERY unalienable right is ABSOLUTE, by definition

        2) They include Life, a package called Liberty, a package called Pursuit of Happiness … and an unknown number GUARANTEED by the 9th Amendment.

        3) You have NO CLUE what the vast majority of those ABSOLUTE rights are. NONE. They are not “enumerated” — intentionally (do you know why?)

        4) But you DO know that LIfe and Liberty are absolute.

        THUS, the fetal child’s unalienable Right to LIfe is PRECISELY equal to the woman’s unalienable Right to Liberty

        AND … if the fetus has full human rights at conception … SO DID THE WOMAN!!!

        SO … how would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights … both absolute … and WHY would you promote changing two centuries of Constitutional precedent … and even more centuries of Natural Law.

        And why reject the notion of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given Rights? IF you claim to be Christian, why would you reject the expressed Will of Almighty God?

        1. Dude, could you make any less sense?

  10. “Can senseless gun regulations be constitutional?”

    No……but fuck you anyways.

    1. Can sensible gun regulations be constitutional? Also no.

      1. Depends on the regulation.

        Laws against brandishing are pretty specifically about guns, while at the same time they are about not threatening people with them.

        Thus, a regulation based on “If you brandish a weapon, you might get slightly shot” would be constitutional, because they are about actions taken by a person, not about whether he has the right to the weapon he takes those actions with.

        1. LOL The 1994 assault weapons ban was TOTALLY constitutional … since Miller (1939) and reaffirmed by Scalia (Heller) … which is why the NRA was totally helpless for 10 long years (when it expired)

          Your apparent errors on Heller are described and FULLY documented here
          https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

          1. Dude, you make no sense. The reason the 1994 “assault weapons” ban was not challenged in court was that the left controlled the Supreme Court until Roberts. No one was stupid enough to bring a gun case in front of a liberal court. By the time the court was non-left, the ’94 ban had expired.

  11. The more troubling issue is that the Second Circuit more or less rubber stamps everything New York City does, as long as the wind of the progressive consensus is blowing in the same direction.

  12. Can -Senseless- Gun Regulations Be Constitutional?

    No

    1. Nor can ‘common sense’ regulation be constitutional.
      “shall not be infringed” is specific.
      If you want gun control, repeal the second amendment. Period.

      1. Yeah but that’s hard and all the bitter clingers won’t go for it.

        1. Yup, that 38 state thing, just like the electoral college, protects the low population places and lifestyle from the insanity that come with living in urban centers.

          Almost like Madison et al. knew what they were doing.

          1. Kennedy, at the White House at a function honoring Nobel Prize recipients:

            “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

        2. Fat Mike’s Drug Habit

          Yeah but that’s hard and all the bitter clingers won’t go for it.

          Antonin Scalia was was a “bitter clinger” in Heller???

      2. If you want gun control, repeal the second amendment. Period.

        Not sufficient. The second amendment doesn’t create the right to self-defense. It acknowledges it as pre-existing.

        -jcr

        1. The second amendment, if you read it, has nothing to do with self-defense. The words say “the security of a free state.” Liberal revisionism cannot be tolerated here. Or anywhere.

          Self-defense is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the 9th Amendment — the amendment denied by Ron Paul and his alt-right, the amendment that incorporates the Declaration’s “unalienable rights” into the Constitution. The Right to Life covers more than unborn fetuses.

      3. Justice Scalia’s Heller ruling proves you wrong ..,. since Miller (1939)
        Learn it here, fully docuented

        https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

  13. This case is the perfect case to bring to the Supreme Court because the infringement is so egregious.
    To prevent law abiding citizens from bringing registered guns from their primary home to (for instance) their vacation home is outrageous.
    As if they had no need for home defense in a different home.
    It is a perfect case for the court to declare gun control laws must pass strict scrutiny.
    The New Yorks’ “Safe Act” is gone!

    1. My question what other property items are people not allowed to take with them anywhere they want? If you are not allowed to take your property, belongings, with you then its no longer your property.

  14. Have to say it. Revolvers are pistols no need to say “pistols and revolvers”. if you are looking for clarity then you would say semi auto handgun and revolvers. revolvers are also handguns but it does point out the difference. Note though revolvers were at one time called auto pistols since they also fire with each pull of the trigger.

    1. One would think, but that is not how industry uses the terms, for reasons I don’t understand. Pistols and revolvers are typically used as two basic subsets of handguns. Pistols being any handgun that is not a revolver- semi autos, single shots, etc. Revolvers are any handgun that is, well, a revolver- single or double action. For example, go look at the manufacturer’s website for a company that makes both, like S&W or Ruger- under product categories they will list “pistol” and “revolver” separately. Though, as noted, not all firearms with revolving chambers are handguns either, which makes things even messier.

  15. I have been lurking on Reason for a long time.
    I have not commented because I always thought I was a Republican.
    As a gun enthusiast, I am disappointed in President Trump with his bump stock ban. Which cost me hundreds of dollars to turn in my legally owned property, which I used all the time and very much enjoyed.
    I am angry at our Florida RINO’s who passed all kinds of anti gun laws after The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shootings.
    So now I hope to find a home in the libertarian Party.
    I think a lot of people of the gun may follow me here.

    1. See, you should have gotten a Hellfire trigger, like me: Still legal, and actually works better than a bump stock.

      Too bad you couldn’t have joined the LP before it became the joke it is today.

    2. I think you will find that many libertarians are far more left leaning than you imagine.

      1. At least most of reasons writers.

      2. If he likes guns we’ll get along on that subject, but he’s gonna have to get used to all the weed, buttsex and Mexicans.

  16. this is one of those “no” headlines, no?

    1. Yes. I mean, no. Wait, wait…yes. No?

  17. Other flagrant abuses in NY

    May issue (practically no issue in some counties and NYC)

    Reciprocity (NY only recognize 23 out of state permits. NYC does not recognize any Upstate NY permits. No states recognize NY’s difficult to obtain permit)

    Ban on suppressors (while people complain about noise and try to close ranges)

    Ban on open carry (while making it almost impossible, in some areas, to conceal carry)

    SAFE Act . Rammed thru in the middle of the night w/o the required 3 day discussion. The 10 round mag limit (was originally limited to 7 bullets) gives home invaders an unfair advantage, Assault weapons (a made up word) now includes assault pistols and assault shotguns. Required background check for private sales.

    https://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

    1. The “may” issue is the most troubling aspect of NYC’s anti-gun laws.

      On the questionnaire and, if you get that far, interview, you are asked why you want, for example, a handgun.

      In practice, no answer is correct.

      Self-defense?

      “Sorry, you have the police to protect you and, really, you sound far too paranoid to even have a gun.”

      Target practice?

      “Find a new hobby. Have you tried darts?”

      Second amendment rights?

      “Just because it’s in the Constitution, doesn’t mean you get to do it. You wouldn’t scream “Fire!” in a movie theater, right?”

      The only way you get a handgun in NYC is being a cop, or an ex-cop. In other words, by knowing a few good old boys on the force. Because, obviously, NYC police officers are infallible human beings that cannot be too paranoid or bored to blow somebody’s head off in the heat of the moment.

      1. “The only way …” Nope. The band Aerosmith got gifted NYC handgun permits by giving free back stage passes to the licensing authority.
        NYC handgun permits are like the keys to the city, special gifts for special people.

        1. Huh, that’s interesting. Steven Tyler didn’t really strike me as the gun carrying type.

    2. No states recognize NY’s difficult to obtain permit
      Not sure about other states, but Texas recognizes the New York license.
      (N.Y. does not honor the Texas license to carry a handgun.)

      1. You are correct.

        I should have said, “out of state permits are not valid in NY”.

  18. Richard Dearing, the attorney representing New York City, was stumped. “Petitioners have identified a difficult application of our former rule that wasn’t really contemplated when the rule was adopted,” he said.

    Be careful not to step in the BS, fellow commenters.

    1. Yeah, but we’ll see how many on SCOTUS eats the BS when they vote.

      1. If RBG isn’t willing to defer to their rationale, they’re probably gonna lose Kagan, and possibly Sotomayor if the plaintiff’s attorneys are smart enough to point out that the law has a disparate racial impact (since minorities are more commonly the victims of violent crime).

        Point is, I think they knew their goose was cooked the minute that cert was granted, which is why they tried so hard to moot the case. One advantage, at least, of NYC’s idiocy when it comes to guns is that their overreach offers us an opportunity. They have gone so far beyond the pale that even the more sympathetic members of the court can’t justify their shenanigans, which means we might actually get a solid 2A ruling to reinforce Heller.

        1. “They have gone so far beyond the pale that even…”
          Your optimism is cute. There is no ‘beyond the pale’ for these people.

  19. Too many people see self-defense and private gun ownership as malum in se crimes and would like to see the 2nd Amendment struck down as unconstitutional. Even if they don’t quite dare to go that far, their premise lets them claim a “compelling state interest” for any and all anti-gun laws up to and including total bans.

    “A gun-control advocate is someone who would rather see a woman dead in an alleyway with her pantyhose around her neck, rather than alive with a gun in her hand” is not a rhetorical exaggeration.

  20. An easy logic test: substitute the infringed item for a book. If you have freedom of the press and are free to read and write and publish what you choose, is that freedom infringed if you are prohibited from driving around with the book in your car and taking it somewhere else?

    1. Yes, but, Militias!
      I’ve made this argument repeatedly, and it doesn’t sink in.

  21. Don’t give the controllers ideas. I’ve heard Mao Tse-tung quoted as saying the ideas in a book are more dangerous than the bullets in a gun.

  22. What are the odds that, if SCOTUS had accepted the mootness argument, NYC would have waited a few beats and come up with more onerous and senseless restrictions on legal NYC gun owners?

  23. I honestly don’t understand how NY’s regulations survived lower courts. A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage. Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. The federal law is considered the supreme law and it always supersedes the state or local law.

    1. It survived because it states you can take it from and to any place you’re lawfully allowed to possess it, and New York bans you from lawfully possessing guns pretty much anywhere that they haven’t been forced to allow you by SCOTUS. This absolutely violates the spirit of the law, not to mention the second amendment, but it’s technically correct in a very narrow sense, which was enough to let the lower courts wave it on through without having to take an unpopular stand.

      1. “It survived because it states you can take it from and to any place you’re lawfully allowed to possess it,”

        No, not really. There are whole states where they can lawfully possess those guns, because NY and NYC’s laws on the topic can’t dictate what you can lawfully do in South Carolina or Nevada, for instance.

        But if you ignore that NYC’s law doesn’t have any bearing on what’s legal outside NYC, you can sort of rationalize it being correct, and since the courts in question were only looking for an excuse to uphold the law, that’s good enough.

  24. I think most of you do not understand: We do not trust you with guns.

    Thanks,
    gkam

    1. We get it. We don’t trust you with the reins of government, either.

    2. Yes, I understand that you are incapable of understanding that other people have the same rights and liberties that you would reserve for yourself. You are not fully sapient. Like the dog who is confused by the mirror dog. Contemplate that, Progressive.

      1. My dog is offended that you would use dogs as a simile for Progressives.

  25. Reminder… On the subject of mootness, the SCOTUS considers a case that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” to be justiciable:

    “The case is not moot where interests of a public character are asserted by the Government under conditions that may be immediately repeated, merely because the particular order involved has expired. The rule that this Court will only determine actual controversies, and will dismiss if events have transpired pending appeal which render it impossible to grant the appellant effectual relief does not apply to an appeal involving an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission merely because that order has expired. Such orders are usually continuing and capable of repetition, and their consideration, and the determination of the right of the Government and the carriers to redress, should not be defeated on account of the shortness of their term.” – Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC (1911) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/219/498/

    1. Yeah, there was a whole article about that subject here not long ago. Though it was probably on the Volokh Conspiracy.

  26. “Can Senseless Gun Regulations Be Constitutional?”

    Only if the illiterates on the SCOTUS say so.
    Hey, Ginsburg.
    Aren’t you dead yet?

  27. There is NO SUCH THING as “common sense gun legislation” when it comes to abiding by the Constitution! And the SCOTUS has ruled on it without specifically ruling on the 2nd Amendment with Miranda vs AZ…

    “Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Maranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S.

    It is SIMPLE! The 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT secured by the Constitution, is it not?!!! Case CLOSED!

    • Sherer V. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights”
    • Shuttlesworth V. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262 “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
    • City of Chicago V. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910 “…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.”
    • Miller V US 230 Fed 486, 489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional (guaranteed) right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    • Murdock V. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.”

    All of these gun grabbers can suck a nut!

    1. Scalia says baloney. So does the Miller. where you cherry-pick a single sentence.

      Miuller ruled, confirmed by Heller, that 2A protects ONLY the modern version of those weapons in common use at our founding, brought from home for militia services — essentially single-shot pistols and rifles.

      Are you seriously unaware that the NRS was powerless against the 1994 assault weapons ban, for 10 long years, until it expired. That single sentence refutes your entire comment.

      Despite your attempted revisionism. Simplifying both Miller and Heller. Look to the prefatory clause. Textualism. Original intent

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…

      The PURPOSE of the amendment was to insure the convention opposition to a standing army — specifically that a future government could trick its way to a standing army by banning militia-grade weapons. (Other weapons were banned or regulated, differently in each state.

      The citizens militia has not provided the military defense of American in over a century. Some claim the right is intended to allow an armed revolution … , AGAINST the security of a free state! Which is as wacky as anything on the far left!

      Thus, because the entire militia function no longer exists, and we CHOSE an armed standing army for military-grade weapons, the right applies to the weapons in common use, at ratification, kept at home. No, nobody kept cannons at home, and dragged them to militia battles. And because the right of self defense is GREATER than 2A, total repeal would likely change nothing.

      It is SIMPLE! The 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT secured by the Constitution, is it not?!!! Case CLOSED!

      True, but you are severely wrong on what that right includes. Case has been CLOSED, for 80 years now.

      How is your revisionism of original text, and your denying 80 years of constitutional precedent any different, in principle from … say … Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

      1. This smells like a Hinh sock.

        1. Hihn understands Heller?
          You are ignorant of it?

        2. mpercy. a stalking cyber-bully,was even wackier here.

          https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

          He has now been publicly humiliated twice. So far.

      2. “The PURPOSE of the amendment was to insure the convention opposition to a standing army — specifically that a future government could trick its way to a standing army by banning militia-grade weapons. (Other weapons were banned or regulated, differently in each state.”

        The same 2nd Amdt written by some of our founders who were active in the MA area before the battles of Lexington and Concord, that started our Revolutionary War in response to British attempts to seize cannon, powder, and shot from colonial militias, who were mustered from the nearby countryside, and then states, to repel the British? The same founders who participated in drafting and selling first the Declaration of Independence, then Bill of Rights?

        My point there is that you cannot understand the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amdt without reference to the fact that the same Founders were involved from at least the day that the Brits were rebuffed by the local militias in Concord, the Declaration of Independence, then the 2nd Amdt, were adopted. A lot of the same people, at least one of whom later became President.

        1. “The PURPOSE of the amendment was to insure the convention opposition to a standing army — specifically that a future government could trick its way to a standing army by banning militia-grade weapons. (Other weapons were banned or regulated, differently in each state.)”

          The same 2nd Amdt written by some of our founders who were active in the MA area before the battles of Lexington and Concord, that started our Revolutionary War in response to British attempts to seize cannon, powder, and shot from colonial militias, who were mustered from the nearby countryside, and then states, to repel the British? The same founders who participated in drafting and selling first the Declaration of Independence, then Bill of Rights?

          Yes. Your blowhard ignorance is humiliated elsewhere. See link below.

          >My point there is that you cannot understand the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amdt without reference to the factYour “point” is the OPINION of a NOBODY … with NO documentation … versus MY DOCUMENTED PROOF, including historical references in two SCOTUS rulings: Miller(1939), reaffirmed by Scalia’s Heller.

          PROOF of your windy bloviating — FULLY DOCUMENTED:
          https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

          NEXT: MY statement on opposition to a standing army is DOCUMENTED next. ALSO proving you a blowhard!

          1. Part 2 — proving Hayden a blowhard
            STATES WERE FORBIDDEN TO KEEP TROOPS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS ,… FURTHER EXPOSING HAYDEN’S WINDBAGGERY!!
            US v Miller (1939) (my emphasis)

            The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

            The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. (((smirk))

            These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

            Hayden has NOTHING. Next, MORE PROOF HE’S BLOVIATING

          2. Sounds a lot more like he humiliated you with his smple logic.

      3. “Miuller ruled, confirmed by Heller, that 2A protects ONLY the modern version of those weapons in common use at our founding, brought from home for militia services — essentially single-shot pistols and rifles.”

        Which apparently is why the firearm involved in Heller was decidedly not one of the muzzle loading single shot guns that you are apparently talking about. ????

        1. “Mess with the bull; get the horns”
          My boldface, attitude and tone … in self-defense … REFLECT the snarky attitude, blatant ignorance and shameful LIES of my windbag assailant..

          ANOTHER MASSIVE BLUNDER
          NOW HAYDEN LIES ABOUT MY OWN WORDS ,,, AFTER QUOTING THEM! OMFG

          Emphasis added for any other lying guntards

          “Miller ruled, confirmed by Heller, that 2A protects ONLY the modern version of those weapons in common use at our founding, brought from home for militia services — essentially single-shot pistols and rifles.

          Which apparently is why the firearm involved in Heller was <decidedly not one of the muzzle loading single shot guns that you are apparently talking about. ????

          MODERN VERSION, CHUMP

          “MUZZLE-LOADING IS MORE BULLSHIT — OR HAYDENSHIT, PULLED OUT OF YOUR PATHETIC LYING ASS

          ****MOAR PROOF YOU NEVER EVEN SAW THE RULING, ALSO IGNORANT OF SCOTUS PROCEDURE … TWO PARTS … PAY ATTENTION
          1) “The weapon” part also established — DO YOU KNOW
          THIS? … 2a AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, (duh.-)

          2) ANY new precedent, REQUIRES clarifying if any prior precedents are affected. So …. Scalia HAD to affirm, overrule or revise WHAT WEAPONS ARE PROTECTED (Miller,1939) … which he did … in a ruling you NEVER READ and CANNOT GRASP … despite your lengthy, self-righteous, ignorant AND blatantly dishonest bloviating

          Sadly, MANY guntards as as ignorant, dishonest, brainwashed, and arrogant blowhards. For the (self-) righteous cause!

          See “Entropy Drehmaschine Void” below … and elsewhere (sigh)

      4. Shut the fuck up, you lying bastard.

        Oh, and DIAF, Hihntard.

        1. Entropy Drehmaschine Void
          Shut the fuck up, you lying bastard.

          I;ve already proven YOU the lying bastard … with your MULTIPLE unprovoked assaults. So I can now just link to it!
          https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

          NOW ADD the lengthy smackdown of Bruce Hayden, whose screw up was more detailed than your whining like a pussy HERE.

          YOU, sir, have been suckered, brainwashed, manipulated and exploited, for political gain. If you care about FACTS, you will cleanse yourself. If you favor bullshit that you WANT to beleeb, at least avoid any more self-humiliation. (I am reflecting your attitude to me, initiated by you)

      5. Miller implicitly protects possesion of weapons related to militia service. That would include semi-auto versions of the M16. Miller was convicted of possession of a sawed-off shotgun, not an automatic. Heller protects weapons in common use at the time. At the time of Heller, semi-autos with detachable magazines were in common use.

        To say that the 2nd Amendment only ptotects possession of flintlocks is like saying the 1st only protects un-amplified speech and Guttenburg-style presses, not broadcasting, the internet, or machine driven presses.

        Learn to love freedom.

  28. The socialists don’t have any (US) Constitution to go by so anything they do is perfectly legal in their view. That’s what happens when the idiots take over the country.

    1. No different than Trumpsters.
      Also dishonest.

      1. Trumpsters are more honest. Lesrn to love freedom.

      2. Trumpsters are more honest. Learn to love freedom

  29. For some reason, it is perfectly correct for the news media to keep posting essentially the same article over and over again, but if I post the same response to those articles, I am deleted as spam?

    Here is the response I posted to another article on this exact same issue.

    It is time for the Supreme Court to clarify the 2nd Amendment!

    If, as the “Gun Safety” groups and the Democrats are constantly claiming, the rate of mass shootings and the number of victims per shooting are both increasing, why is every Democrat, at every level of government, saying they want to further infringe my ability to protect myself? It is already illegal for felons to possess firearms; it is already illegal to attempt to harm people without legal justification; it is already illegal to shoot people without legal justification; and, it is already illegal to murder people. The term “common sense laws” means the proponents of those laws can not offer any real proof of their effectiveness, so they want us, and the federal courts, to “just believe”. None of these laws proposed by the “Gun Safety” groups and the Democrats protect me; they only infringe on my right to protect myself and/or others. Why do the federal courts use the lowest possible standard of proof (“Preponderance of Evidence” vs “Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”) when evaluating if a “gun control” law has an overwhelming benefit to society and is therefore a permissible infringement on the 2nd Amendment? Those shootings are all criminal acts, committed by criminals. I am not a criminal and I am legally licensed to carry a concealed firearm for protection, which is exactly the Right protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment. My finger prints are on file with the government, they monitor my background record and, in addition, they run a full background check on me every 5 years when I renew my CCW license. Can you say that about your next door neighbor? Why do I need a government issued license, that I have to renew every 5 years, to carry a concealed firearm and why, even with that license, can’t I carry my firearm in every municipality, territory, state, and every other part of the United States, when we have The Constitution of the United States that says:

    The Constitution of the United States . . .

    Article. IV.
    Section. 1.
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    Section. 2.
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. . . .

    Article. VI. . . .
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. . . .

    Amendments to the Constitution of the United States . . .

    Amendment II
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. . . .

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . . .

    AMENDMENT XIV
    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . .

    1. P.S. Also dishonest, or a common error, to ignore the STRICT limits on 10A, within 9A. For the obvious reason that unenumerated RIGHTS are superior to unenumerated POWERS in a government of DELEGATED powers. Yet, many suffer the ignorance that states can have undelegated powers, or the doctrine of the KKK, southern racists, and Ron Paul, that states have the power to reject fundamental constitutional rights. (See Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1957, Faubus vs Eisenhower)

      1. Dude, you make no sense.

  30. Much misinformation. No mention that Scalia, in Heller, reaffirmed US v Miller (1939), that 2A protects ONLY the modern version of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty. For rifles, essentially the modern equivalent of a musket. Scalia even ridiculed disagreement, within his ruling.

    This simple fact often leads to ouraged bellowing from some guntards (the brainwashed ones … apparently ignorant that the NRA was totally helpless against the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (what its called) for ten long years, until it expired. Because such a ban had been constitutional since 1939, it could only expire after its 10 year life, or be repealed before it expired.

    In other words, nobody has to prove any benefit to society at all, to ban anything more than a single-shot rifle. We do not make constitutional decisions based upon such “warm and fuzzy” concepts as “benefit to society'” unless one believes the nonsense of a “living constitution.” We follow the Constitution or amend it, as the Founders intended. Full stop.

    P.S. The Second Amendment is not “infringed” unless bans seek to limit the use of single shot pistols and rifles. And, as Scalia also reminded in his ruling. 2A , like most rights, is not an unlimited right. Scalia also reaffirmed Miller, that bans on “unusual and dangerous weapons” were historical, both before and after ratification, plus much broader bans in much of the “Old West”

    1. Your utterly stupid and ignorant of facts. But then again, you are a conservative gun nut, so that’s par for the course.

      The reason why we even have a Bill of Rights is because of they’re benefit to society based on “warm and fuzzy feelings. They were added because people felt that the Constitution as it existed didn’t adequately cover those things.

      Next time, Cletus, pick up a book instead of your gun and you might learn something. It’s unlikely, but give it a try.

      1. Before anyone tries to prove their intellectual superiority by pointing out my typo (which I doubt any of you hillbillies will catch anyway), I’m already aware of it. I just can’t edit my comment to change it.

      2. Cletus yourself, you’re arguing with a sock puppet who heartily agrees with all gun control laws, except that flintlock pistols and muskets are allowed.

        1. (posted in self-defense of mindless slander, by a typically ignorant guntard:)

          IT’S THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF FLINTLOCKS AND MUSKETS …. SINCE 1939, AND REAFFIRMED BY SCALA’S HELLER RULING …. WHICH LITERALLY /I> RIDICULED YOUR IGNORANCE

          (mpercy is a witless tool of the political elites … just as eager to be manipuLated and brainwashed as the supporters of Alexandria Olivia Cortez … both witless tools of the political elites.)

          What did Scalia really say in Heller? In the process of establishing gun ownership as an individual right, Scalia had to reaffirm what that right protects. The precedent was established by US v Miller in 1939, where the RIGHT was expanded to an individual right, requiring a ruling on what that right protects.

          Heller Ruling, SCOTUS web site, Page One

          1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes

          The limitation on protected weapons does NOT infringe on the right, merely defines what the right protects.

          2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ….

          Clear enough? Page one. The paragraph continues …

          …Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

          “At the time” means at ratification. Guntards say it means “currently.” — bat-shit crazy, in the context. And bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons” kicks their asses anyhow.

          *******SCALIA LATER RIDICULES THE CLAIM, BY BRAINWASHED GUNTARDS LIKE MPERCY, THAT the ruling would limit the protected weapons.to muskets. (lol)

          Page 8: “… Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search.

          DUH.

          ***Scalia explicitly argues why “M-16 rifles and the like” are NOT protected. Page 55

          It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

          But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

          Guntards repeatedly say THAT means the opposite of what it says, part of what Scalia dismissed as “frivolous!”

          Yes, Virginia, 2A DOES protect only hunting rifles, or something quite close. Semi-automatics are already excluded. That’s why the NRA was HELPLESS against the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban … for 10 long years. FULL STOP.

            1. Entropy Drehmaschine Void
              Please stop.

              My self-defense stops ,… when the unprovoked aggression stops.

              Verbal Aggressiveness …A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

              Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

              Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

              Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention.

              psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
              -Anyone lacking a conscience, a sense of right and wrong
              -Authoritarian thugs, right and left, who seek dominance over others, typically through bullying and other aggressions

              Left – Right = Zero

              1. Search terms for ya: psychology projection

          1. And there’s the full-on Hinh rant!

            1. MOAR PROOF! GUNTARDS REJECT OUR CONSTITUTION.
              *Entropy Drehmaschine Void
              *mpercy

              How do they respond to DOCUMENTED PROOF?
              BY WHINING LIKE PUSSIES!

              THEIR AUTHORITARIAN MENTALITY REJECTS /I> CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED .

              THEIR BELLOWING DEMANDS CONSENT OF THEIR AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT … UBER ALLES …. SEIG HEIL!!

              FEEL THEIR RAGE.
              FEAR THEIR RAGE.

              1. Search terms for ya: psychology projection

              2. AUTHORITARIAN MENTALITY?

                You’re the one who wants to increase government authority to prohibit all private possession of firearms except single shots, and prosecute and imprison those who are not threatening anyone yet don’t comply. The libertarians i.e. the pro-gun people just want to be left alone.

                Search terms for ya: psychology projection

            2. And there’s the full-on Hinh rant!

              (lol) That was JUSTICE SCALIA’S “rant,”,ridiculing you as “frivolous” in his Heller ruling. Apparently UNDENIABLE PROOF — linked o the source — is a rant … to a proven liar.

              *******SCALIA LATER RIDICULES THE CLAIM, BY BRAINWASHED GUNTARDS LIKE MPERCY, THAT the ruling would limit the protected weapons.to muskets. (lol

              Scalia’s Heller Rulling, SCOTUS website Versus bellowing and farting. (my emphasis)

              Page 8:
              “… Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search.

              How could it be any clearer, mpercy?

      3. O what basis do you confuse a “conservative gun nut” with … the exact opposite?

        On what planet does a “conservative gun nut” know that the Second Amendment has protected on the modern equivalent of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … since 1939 … which means, for rifles, the modern equivalent of a single-shot musket.

        I say … ‘WE DO NOT MAKE CONSTITUTIONAL; DECISIONS BASED ON “WARM AND FUZZY” CONCEPTS AS “BENEFIT TO SOCIETY.”
        SOCIETY HAS NO RIGHTS. ONLY INDIVIDUALS DO.
        DO YOU ALSO “THINK” THAT STATES HAVE RIGHTS — OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS — PER THE ALT-RIGHT, AS ENABLED BY RON PAUL?

        SO, YOUR PROFOUND IGNORANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES IS MATCHED BY A (LITERALLY) LAUGHABLE IGNORANCE OF “CONSERVATIVE GUN NUTS.”

        MPERCY IS THE CONSERVATIVE GUN NUT.
        LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES

  31. New York has assholes in charge. Many judges are also assholes. Now? What to do! What’s the workaround?

  32. REASON?

    It’s laughable you right wing gun nuts have the nerve to call your website “reason”. You idiots haven’t got the capacity for it. You talk about senseless gun laws when the only thing that’s senseless is the violence perpetrated from it, and idiots who don’t understand that.

    The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee you the right to a gun. It’s meant for a militia, which is why it specifically mentions that in the 2nd Amendment. Is English too hard for you slack jawed yokels?

    Even if it did grant the right for the general population to have guns, that doesn’t mean that it would do so without measures being in place to protect people from it being taken to the extreme.

    Freedom of speech was only meant to cover people’s rights to express their opinion about the government and to report facts about it without fear of being put to death. It doesn’t mean you can slander someone. It doesn’t mean you can say something which incites a riot, and so on.

    Also, when expressing your opinion in a general sense, you only have the right to do it in a forum where people want to hear it. You don’t have the right to go to a Black person’s home and tell them how much you hate them, even though you racists would love to.

    The same applies to guns. We have tests for pretty much everything else, such as for becoming a doctor, or even driving a car. Yet, you think anyone, no matter how big a threat, should be able to own a gun.

    You don’t have the right to possess a gun if you can’t do so safely and responsibly. You don’t have the right to it if you’re a criminal (to include terrorists) or mentally unstable.

    But that’s why you oppose gun laws, isn’t it? Because all you right wingers are at least one of those things, and you know you wouldn’t be able to keep buying guns if there are strict gun laws preventing those people from buying them, because those people are YOU.

    1. Sir or Madam, I suggest you read the minutes of Congress around the time the BOR was being hammered out. I suggest you read the Constitutions of several states that predated the Constitution of the United States. I suggest you read contemporaneous documents about the dangers of a standing army and how the militia of the people–duly armed and self-provisioned–stood as a bulwark against a federal government running roughshod over any State or the people. I suggest you remember that the USA as the Constitution was being framed had just won a war against a tyrannical government using those self-armed people, and that one trigger of that war had been an effort by the King’s government to seize privately owned arms from the colonists.

      The 2nd has didly squat to do with using firearms for hunting or self-defense. Those uses were considered innate rights possessed by the people. The particular reason for never allowing the right to keep and bear arms was emphasized by the 2nd: to make it clear that an armed populace that would insure against the government becoming tyrannical, especially since it was believed that the people would naturally possess arms and training little removed from those held by a standing army and vastly outnumber any such army as may be turned against the people.

      1. YOUR BULLSHIT WAS EXPOSED AND PROVEN A LIE … EVERY TIME YOU STALKED AND ASSAULTED ME ABOVE .,… SO YOU CRAWL DOWN HERE AND HIDE IN COWARDICE …. LIKE THE WHINYV PUSSYOU ART… AND REPEAT YOUR PROVEN BULLSHIT?

        You, sir, are a GUNtard, with the same shameful moral debasement as a progtard.

        ONE MORE TIME … PROOF … actual text, with linkS and page numbers to confirm MY integrity.

        -Defending libertarian values for 50 years
        – As the adult in the room.
        THIS is how LIBERTARIAN ADULTS behave

        1. DAMN. that should be a reply to the repeated bulllsit of Entropy …
          Which I shall now correct,
          (mpercy was also proven a fraud, but he’s not was shameless as Entropy …)

          1. Sounds like mpercy was making a lot of sense and it threatened your ego. So you went bold-faced all caps ballistic.

      2. Now mpercy … WRONG ON EVERYTHING 2a
        *Intent
        * What weapons are protected

        PROOF
        https://reason.com/2019/12/04/can-senseless-gun-regulations-be-constitutional/#comment-8037991

        TOTALLY wrong on history at the time, states, etc
        Link to PROOF in part 2

        1. ACTUAL gun status at ratification.

          US v Miller (1939), affirmed by Scalia in Heller

          The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

          The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.

          These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

          Scalia in Heller

          1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes The limitation on protected weapons does NOT infringe on the right, merely defines what the right protects.

          …Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

          “At the time” means at ratification. Guntards say it means “currently.” — bat-shit crazy, in the context. And bans at the time, on “dangerous and unusual weapons” kicks their asses anyhow.

          1. Flintlocks were the assault weapons of the time of the founding. The people, private individuals, owned the same small arms carried by the military. Today, commensurate small arms would be M16s or M4s. Semi-auto versions are in common use at this time.

      3. and how the militia of the people–duly armed and self-provisioned–stood as a bulwark against a federal government running roughshod over any State or the peopleLIE …
        “the security if a free STATE”

        State is government. DOES NOT recognize a right for an armed citizen revolt AGAINST “the security of a free state.”

        In the type of representative government they created … amend the constitution … if you FAIL at that, you OPPOSE consent of the governed .. and you should be killed like the threat of a wild dog.

        1. “…free state…” not a tyrannical one. You oppose consent of the governed. You’re confusing it with the power of the majority. If the majority imposes tyranny on the minority, it is in the wrong and the minority has the right to resist.

          Anyone reading this, notice the nature of the anti-gun forces – ” .. and you should be killed like the threat of a wild dog.” They want you dead. And if they ever gained power, they would try to holocaust you.

        2. “…FREE state…” not a tyranmical one.

    2. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      “The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee you the right to a gun. It’s meant for a militia, which is why it specifically mentions that in the 2nd Amendment.”

      Boy, you are a Special Kind of Stupid, aren’tcha?

    3. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

      1. YOUR BULLSHIT WAS EXPOSED AND PROVEN A LIE … EVERY TIME YOU STALKED AND ASSAULTED ME ABOVE .,… SO YOU CRAWL DOWN HERE AND HIDE IN COWARDICE …. LIKE THE WHINY PUSSY yOU ARE… AND REPEAT YOUR PROVEN BULLSHIT?

        ****Heller also reaffirmed Miller (1939) that 2A protects ONLY the modern equivalent of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia service … essentially single-shot, modern, pistols and rifles/

        You, sir, are a GUNtard, with the same shameful moral debasement as a progtard.

        ONE MORE TIME … PROOF … actual text, with linkS and page numbers to confirm MY integrity.

        -Defending libertarian values for 50 years
        – As the adult in the room.

        1. The modern equivalent of weapons in common use at ratification are full-auto M16s or M4s. At the time of ratification the individual possessed the same small arms as the military, hence have the constitutional right to possess small arms commensurate with the military.

        2. Defending ?libertarian? values? Try authoritarian values. Nothing you’ve written is the least libertarian. All you do is defend authoritarianism under a false moniker.

    4. Middie, everything you wrote is beside the point. No one is claiming that anyone has any right to commit any aggressive act with a firearm. The issue is whether New York City can enforce burdensome laws with no rational basis. Your rush to portray anyone who disagrees with you as a criminal belies your totalitarian instincts. Totalitarians like you are the best reason to maintain the freedom to own firearms.

  33. Mr. Dearing might mean well, be giving his honestly held opinions regarding his comments/testimony, but the following questions come to mind in regard to the above referenced.
    1. Are his “promises” fact based or do they simply reflect his preferences, hopes, opinion?
    2. Does he swing a big enough hammer to see his “promises” carried out?
    3. What happens down the road, when he has perhaps gone on to other pastures?
    As a former, long time resident of N.Y.C., I departed in 1967, these questions are important, and answers should be obtained by the court, for the law abiding, gun owning resident of N.Y.C. has never had the benefit of a square deal from city government. The state government being no better in my view.

  34. You can’t turn over violent governance of your life to an elite, e.g., vote, and then complain about the tyranny. What did not expect, representation? Why? Because that was the promise? And who decides if you got represented? NOT you, but the elite thugs you created. They decide the meaning of “probable cause”, “due process” and “rights”. Their blatant abuse of logic/reason is proof that coercive govt. doesn’t work, doesn’t create order, only chaos.
    The time for a political paradigm change was 200 years ago with the Alien & Sedition Acts or when the unconstitutional Whiskey Tax was protested and the protest was put down (unconstitutionally) with state militia commandeered by the feds who inflicted murder/arrest. Jefferson was so appalled he came out of retirement and got elected POTUS so he could reverse Washington’s tyranny. He pardoned the hundreds imprisoned.

Please to post comments