New York Effectively Nullifies The Supreme Court’s Latest Pro-Second Amendment Decision

thefederalist ^ | 7/05/2022 | margot cleveland

[justme4now]

In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

“All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Marbury v. Madison

[glimmerman70]

They can sure try to.

[Revel]

So where is the announcement that NY is on its way to court over all of this?

[MGunny]

The commies in Albany cannot help themselves. This new so called law will be quickly ignored then overturned. Long Isalnd and NYC are the trouble areas . In Suffolk alone ,it is taking close to 2 years just to obtain a “sportsman” permit!!!!

[voicereason]

You may not have noticed, but the Left has stopped arguing with you. They have set their course, their end point is your and your people's destruction, by any means necessary.

Truer words may have never been spoken.

[bIlluminati]

Incorrect. Unlike the First Amendment, which starts with Congress shall make no law, ... the Second Amendment has no qualifiers. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This should legally strike down as moot the New York law, any church, school, bar, or courtroom prohibition, any individual store, residence, etc. provision. However, a business could exercise the right to refuse service (but not the right to carry).

[bIlluminati]

Especially if the person requesting a firearm had damages - death, disability, theft. The legislature, governor, and any law enforcement can and should be held personally liable, and their insurance should refuse to pay, on the basis of intentionally violating the personal right to self-defense.

[Scrambler Bob]

CA does.

But not a background check on your target.

[Jim W N]

You correctly read the Constitution when you read it as written and originally understood and intended. If a clause is clear, you take it as is. If a clause is unclear or ambiguous , then you look to the the original understanding of the clause and the intent of the ratifiers. The intent of the RATIFIERS, who turn a proposal into law and who turned the Constitution into the Supreme Law of the Land and created the Untied States of America, is dispositive in correctly interpreting and applying the Constitution.

A look at the the background of the first 10 amendments will tell you that Madison wrote them as an answer to the antifederalists who did not want a federal government because they were afraid it would become what it now has become 250 years later. As a way of getting the antifederalists to join in ratifying the Constitution, Madison and the Founders promised they would include the first ten amendments to at least clarify to the nay-sayers some of the most important right of the people and the states those that already belonged to them.

The LAST thing the antifederalists, critical to the ratification of the Constitution, would agree to would be ADDING MORE power to the federal government.

The only powers delegated to the feds were those enumerated in the body of the Constitution. Anything limiting the states were also in the body on the Constitution. States were limited by only a few things like prohibitions from coining money and making treaties. These things are clarified in the 9A and the 10A. (The first 10 amendments were ratified 3.5 years after the Constitution was ratified.)

[nathanbedford]

Jim, as usual you are on to something.

I would add that one more layer of the onion can be peeled. There is no point in arguing with leftists who are operating with an entirely different software operating system. In other words, the Frankfurt School has provided the left with a worldview, critical theory, that permits them to dispense with reality and engage in a method of thinking which is entirely self-contained, cultish, and impervious to reason, logic or science.

Since they don't share any of our values because they don't even share our culture, our enlightenment, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our scientific method or our idea of tolerance, they simply don't compute whether our Constitution with its Bill of Rights is worth preserving. It simply doesn't matter to them.

So, if we are to prevail in this war-and it is a war-we must find a way to break through their bubble and break down their system of thinking so that we can then effectively argue the particulars with a human even capable of understanding.

[AFPhys]

very good observation