ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Last edited:
NYSRPA v. Bruen, NY 2A Case Supreme Court case and decision
- Thread starter ManualF150
- Start date
1075tech
.338 Win Mag
Why do you think the law will be invalidated? Of course, on the face of it, we know it is unconstitutional. I have no faith that SCOTUS will uphold the constitution though
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
That’s the worst thing about this whole process. We now have to wait 8 months to find out how badly we get boned.
Yep, we can be all but certain that SCOTUS will release the decision in this case, and the abortion ones on the very last day of the term next June, and then they will all jump on planes to get out of town before things get crazy in the streets.
gunpoliticsny
6.5 Creedmoor
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
They left is acting like there will be millions of more guns.. the reality is that people like me, that already have permits, though restricted, will simply be able to carry without fear of some judge arbitrarily revoking a permit because some bootlicker noticed you were carrying and made an issue of it.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
And the people carrying now who are legally disqualified from doing so will keep carrying.
Fuck Scarsdale.
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
They are trying to scare the General Public into thinking that this will make it easy for criminals to have guns, that way when they push for more legislation it will Breeze right through.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Bingo!
The general public does not understand that criminals will continue to be criminals and a constitutional ruling in this case would simply allow law-abiding firearms owners to legally carry their defensive tools.
Law-abiding gun-owning citizens do not suddenly become murderers simply because they are permitted to exercise their second amendment rights.
As we know, concealed carry licensees commit crimes at a lower rate than most of the population:
These Gun Owners Are Least Likely Criminals, Report Finds
"We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” a crime prevention report says.
www.dailysignal.com
"We find that permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth the rate for police officers,” the report says. “Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10. That is just one-seventh of the rate for police officers.”
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
them are nothing .. go watch Naomi 'SexyCyborg' Wu .. lol ..
misunderestimated
.223 Rem
are there any guesses for when they will report back on they're findings?
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Probably in June at the end of the session, but it could be any time before that.
TEOTWAWKI inc.
.338 Win Mag
Brilliant way to say "I don't know".
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Usually the more controversial cases are released at the end of the session. Just the way she goes.Brilliant way to say "I don't know".
This is the type of shit that Clements bland ass should have driven home!!
ManualF150
.308 Win
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I’m so tired of his videos and the stupid clickbait titles. He repeats himself so much it’s irritating.
Then don't watch them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
spat
.950 JDJ
You are aware that one of the hallmarks of facism is government outsourcing oppression to corporations right ?
If the government spun off the FCC to be a private entity like the Federal Reserve is, would that mean they could restrict anything they wanted ?
Now, certainly private companies have the right not to do business with whoever they want. But, they can't exercise editorial control over the content on their platform while simultaneously relying on a specific legal immunity afforded only to neutral platforms.
So, places like Facebook and Twitter should have to pick whether they're platforms or publishers. They should not be allowed to play both sides in that game.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
I did stop but I’ve watched in the past and the YouTube algorithm keeps showing them to me.
Oh nooooo.... maybe don't click them when they show up.. click something else ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Holy shit why didn’t I think of that?
Problem solved. Now you have more free vs posting about how you don't like his videos, since now you apparently know how to not watch them. You are welcome
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes they can. Newspapers do it all the time, they have editorials and also sections like classifieds that allow community posting - and they still have rules about what you can have in those classifieds. Don't like XYZ's rules for their paper, start your own. Same applies to websites, etc.
Let's take Trump's new social media site as an example. They don't allow criticizing Trump on it. Guess what? That's just too damn bad for me - it's not my website and they are a private company. If I don't like the rules, tough potatoes. I support the rights of private companies to make any rules they see fit regarding the usage of their services. - including if that means they won't allow me to post what I want there. Their site = their rules, not my rules.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
you too .. LOL .. when i see his vids and the title .. ohhhh what now ... yep a nothing burger again .. just a rehash of the last 2 vids on the topic ..
spat
.950 JDJ
And newspapers can be sued for for what they put in those sections.
Facebook and Twitter are claiming a specific immunity to liability that was granted to them under the premise that they are neutral content providers.
They fact that they are no longer neutral means they should lose the special immunity that was granted for that very reason.
That is all.
Being a neutral content provider doesn't mean you can't have content rules.
spat
.950 JDJ
You can, but they must be demonstratably neutral.
These guilty parties are obviously anythign but.