• @Septimaeus@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.

    Honestly my heart goes out to the defendant. He could easily have been a coworker of mine, and if my coworker told me about his fun hobby making guns without any FFL, smith license, registration or permitting, in this city of all places, I would have dropped everything to talk sense into him.

    He sounds like any other gun nerd, but he straight up ignored gun law in a place with famously strict and well-enforced gun laws, and with serious gusto.

    defendant’s 36 ghost gun arsenal

    I’m kind of surprised he was able to make as many guns as he did before metro police came knocking. This is Brooklyn. You will almost never see plainclothes open carry in NYC, but manufacturing pushes the case into another bracket entirely.

    • NeuromancerM
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.

      It does apply. A state can create gun laws but they can’t violate the 2nd amendment.

      • @Septimaeus@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts primarily the federal government, save for 5A and 7A and using either clause to use 2A to override state gun control by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.

        • NeuromancerM
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          No, that isn’t how it works at all. That is a view before the Civil War and partially up till the 1960, but SCOTUS has made it clear. The rights are for everyone, state/federal. The states cannot violate your rights in the constitution.

          One of the arguments in Miranda is that the state did not have to follow the 5th Amendment. As you can tell, that did not work as the state thought.

          • @Septimaeus@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            -22 months ago

            Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review. Which case incorporated 2A? Was it more recent than DC-Heller?

            • NeuromancerM
              link
              fedilink
              22 months ago

              Miranda is from the 1960’s.

              Heller is fairly recent but the only reason scotus took the case is states can’t violate the amendments.

              Unless you were born in the 1860’s, it’s been fairly well known that the constitution cannot be violated by states on their citizens.

                  • @Septimaeus@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    22 months ago

                    Then we need to overhaul the court systems and multiply their bureaucratic size and process to satisfy the grand jury requirement of 5A and the civil jury trial right of 7A.

                    And assuming 2a renders state gun control unconstitutional, I presume then we read 2A as a carte blanche guarantee to possession of these weapons to citizens.

                    This is what we propose, yes?