Posted on 10/08/2022 4:55:27 AM PDT by marktwain
The states with the most restrictive gun laws are repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. How much damage are they doing?
In the 2022 Bruen decision, released by the Supreme Court on June 22, the court named six states and the District of Columbia as polities where the governments were violating the rights of their residents to keep and bear arms.
Those states were California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia.
There are reasonably good measures to compare those states to the rest of the country, where laws restricting the sale, ownership, and carry of arms are less burdensome.
The National Instant background Check System (NICS) tracks retail gun sales in all the states. Gun sales are much closer than NICS background checks alone because NICS checks are done for many other things as well.
Gun sales, measured in the NICS system, give us a strong representation of how many guns were purchased in a given year in each state.
Looking at the restrictive states compared to the non-restrictive states will show if the restrictive state laws are repressing the exercise of the right to keep arms by repressing the number of people who purchase firearms.
The number of people who have permits to carry is not as easily obtained. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CRPC) has worked to determine how many carry permits exist in each state. The numbers reported in 2021 will be used for this comparison.
This is a quick, first-order comparison to see if any obvious disparity exists. If no disparity exists, a more sophisticated analysis may or may not show those laws repress the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Population figures for the states were taken from the 2020 census. Gun sales and carry permits will be expressed as rates
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Of course politicians (and judges) in Massachusetts are among those who can be found,nationwide, to believe that the Constitution is "a living document"...meaning that it says whatever *they* want it to say.
I.e., we should enforce the law, punish wrong doers, immediately execute capital offenses, and the guns will take care of themselves.
Modern(key word) gun control laws today tend to disproportionately impact mostly Republican leaning constituents and Democrats know this which is why they so aggressively push gun control. Their rhetoric about reducing crime is just window dressing for their real motives which is to disarm and/or make most vulnerable their political enemies(most of us) so they can engage a “Night of the Broken Glass” type event againt us.
I believe this quite literally.
The only gun law that should be in existence today is if you commit a felony with a firearm 10 years are added to your sentence and that is non-negotiable. Defense attorney gets your sentence down to 6 months, you still have that 10 years in prison. Well that and murder with a gun is life without parole and killing a cop is automatic death sentence.
I think those laws would reduce violent crime a bit.
I hate to say this but Blue State Citizens prefer repression and if people who remain in these Blue States want to exercise any rights will need to leave and leave the cesspools to the ones who prefer being victims and slaves.
Why would you put cops on a pedestal above the rest of US? An automatic death sentence for killing a cop but not for me and mine. No sale.
NY is doing all it can to repress our Constitutional right to bear arms. Takes close to 2 years to obtain a pistol permit that they say you cannot leave your home with unless it’s carried separately in a case from the ammunition and only to a gun range. That in itself is the definition of repression.
Unintended Consequences by John Ross
New York infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights is currently being addressed by the courts.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"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 [emphasis added]; 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."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
In fact, the congressional record shows that when Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), read the Bill of Rights as main examples of constitutionally enumerated protections that 14A applies to the states, he included 2A!
“See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about middle of 2nd column.” — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
The great irony of 14A in the context of 2A is this. Corrupt, election year federal career Democrats and RINOs are now making constitutionally indefensible peacetime restrictive gun laws to try to get themselves reelected, instead of doing their sworn duty to make 14A-based gun laws that discourage state actors from abridging 2A rights.
But also consider that Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters now have the golden opportunity to clean up anti-2nd Amendment Congress by electing Trump-endorsed, pro-2A MAGA candidates as federal and state lawmakers (governors too) in a month.
Insights welcome.
I'm with you on that. I've known too many bad cops, some that deserved to be shot for what they did under color of authority. In front of a judge the officer has "Established credibility". You're assumed to be lying. Guess where it goes from there.
NO. Police officers are not so special that they rate an automatic death penalty upgrade.
In my lifetime, rights have become technicalities to be finessed by the ruling elites for whatever policies they want. I see judges do that all the time. What we saw after the Big Steal, was that we lacked “standing” to complain about the most fraudulent election in American history. The Second Amendment scares the hell out of these elites. Imagine if Trump had called forth the militia as CIC, and those protestors in DC on Jan. 6, 2021 had been armed? That’s not anything anyone here should want, BUT the right to bear arms was not constitutionally protected for just hunting.
“ Why would you put cops on a pedestal above the rest of US? An automatic death sentence for killing a cop but not for me and mine. No sale.”
Because their job is to protect and serve the public. They risk their lives for us. However, if you say, “ No sale” that’s why we have a second amendment. The sale is a criminal with a firearm faces the risk of not knowing if his victim is armed. The criminal knows the folks armed.
That hasn't been their job for quite some time. You may find a hand full of Sheriff's that find some duty in being LEO's but your run of the mill cop is proving with frequency that they only work for their pay master.
“ That hasn’t been their job for quite some time.”
But it is their job. And it’s tougher doing it when your elected officials take your weapons away, defund your departments and let the murderers you arrested back on the streets. Want to change it? Change the politicians by voting them out. That’s the process.
I don’t know Mr. Twain, but 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws are a bit too much.
5.56mm
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.