Posted on 06/25/2022 1:19:41 AM PDT by John Semmens
In a long overdue ruling, the US Supreme Court voided New York's severe restrictions on the right of law-abiding citizens' to use firearms to defend themselves. In New York, no one is allowed to carry a gun outside his or her residence unless they could prove to the police's satisfaction that they need it.
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) called the Court's ruling "outrageous. Who do they think they are telling us what laws we can't have? They are inviting mayhem. If crooks and their victims are both armed what would otherwise be peaceful robberies and rapes can turn into shootouts. Only by reassuring criminals that their intended victims are unarmed can we lower the body count."
Hochul went on to contend that "robbery and rape are lesser crimes than shooting someone in an attempt to avert them. The notion that a law-abiding citizen has a greater need for his money and other valuables than someone else is not conclusively proved. Likewise, the discomforts of rape are more survivable than getting shot at close range."
The Governor said she may call a special session "aimed at neutralizing the Court's ruling. One idea that comes to mind is that if we can't prevent victims from carrying guns we can make using those guns in so-called self-defense illegal. So, while New Yorkers may have a theoretical Second Amendment right to carry firearms they should still answer for the consequences of using deadly force against another person. I'm thinking that brandishing the weapon should be considered felonious menacing, firing it should be attempted murder, and if the perp dies—actual murder."
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito rebutted similarly inane objections from the three dissenting Justices, saying "citing recent mass shootings as a rationale for not undoing the New York law makes no sense. The severely restrictive law did not stop the mass shooting in a Buffalo supermarket. A person willing to violate laws against murder is not going to be stopped by a law making it illegal to carry a weapon outside his residence. On the other hand, if some of the targets of the madman were carrying the lives of some innocent victims might have been saved."
President Biden called the Court's decision "illogical and unconstitutional. Requiring citizens to show proper cause for why they need to carry a gun is well within the jurisdictions of the states. Who knows better than the police whether a particular person has a legitimate need for self-protection? To say that government can't place limits on the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights is crazy. If I had allowed such thinking to sway me we'd have never been able to put clamps on the freedom to speak or publish misinformation during the pandemic. Fortunately, Congress agrees with me. The new gun control legislation they've passed will allow police to seize the guns of anyone who they or someone else has accused of being dangerous or unstable. If a person wants to get his guns back he must prove to a court that he is neither dangerous nor unstable. This will effectively reestablish the kind of control over guns that New York previously exercised."
If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...
https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/327709-2022-06-25-semi-news-semi-satire-june-19-2022-edition.htm
ping
“what would otherwise be peaceful robberies and rapes can turn into shootouts”
That cracked me up.
And people in New York actually voted for this woman? Wow!
The Dobbs (abortion) case: The US Supreme Court decision is constitutionally sound. The Court has jurisdiction over the unconstitutional Court decision in Roe v. Wade and finally overturned it. Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional because 1) the feds have no constitutional authority regarding abortions and 2) the feds have no jurisdiction over state abortion laws.
The Bruen (gun) case: The US Supreme Court decision is constitutionally unsound because the Court has no jurisdiction over NY State gun laws. This appears to be a victory for our Free Constitutional Republic, but it in not because it strengthens more unconstitutional federal power over the states. The greatest threat to our lives and wellbeing is the unconstitutionally unlimited and totalitarian power of the federal government.
The principle of Incorporation from the 14th Amendment says the Bruen decision is sound. States can’t have laws that contradict the Constitution.
Yeah, I know that’s what law schools teach but law schools long ago stopped teaching the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. The principle of incorporation has been tried and found wanting (see “The Slaughterhouse Cases”).
Something as badly written (intentionally) and ambiguous as the 14th Amendment requires one to look to the intention of the RATIFIERS (not the authors). When a portion of the Constitution is as ambiguous and confusing as the 14A, the intention of the ratifiers - those that turned the proposed amendment into law - is mandatory authority for interpreting and applying the 14A.
The key is this: if the ratifiers intended to give the federal government such new, greatly expanded and sweeping powers they never had before, there would have been some record of a debate about this in Congress. But no record of any such debate exists. The fact is, the ratifiers simply treated the 14A for what it was or should have been - a Post-Civil-War Reconstruction Amendment meant to put blacks on an equal footing as whites as citizens. NOTHING MORE.
Forget about the counterfeit “Incorporation Doctrine”. It has been another sneaky Leftist way of unconstitutionally expanding federal power.
Kathy, how are your grocery and gas prices in your state?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.