this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
301 points (95.7% liked)

News

22926 readers
3483 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just a reminder that the right to bear arms in public places was only established in 2008.

[–] sudo22@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only explicitly recognized in 2008. The constitutional amendment SCOTUS used for this ruling was established nearly 250 years ago and has remained unchanged since.

[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How come it took so long if the premise was correct the entire time?

[–] sudo22@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CC/OC has always been legal in the US and only after the civil war did laws restricting carry start to pop up (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). NY recently used a law restricting the rights of Catholics and Native Americans as a historical justification for their CC restrictions. The state laws took awhile (and the fear of some groups carrying to subside) to become infringing enough before law suits began. Someone needed to sue and be able appeal enough times in order to be heard by the SCOTUS, which is difficult and time consuming. But the ruling SCOTUS made isn't what makes CC legal, it is a firm statement that it always was legal and laws infringing on that have always been unconstitutional.

[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Slavery was always legal and only after the civil war did restrictions come about (you can probably guess what group of people this was meant to target). Ignoring hyperbole, it is a fact that the "well regulated" portion of the 2A was understood to allow for restrictions until Scalia made up a reason to ignore it, again in 2008.

Im not going to defend the way NY is going about it, but to say there is no history for gun regulation by States is ignoring history and stare decisis.

[–] sudo22@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ignoring the metaphor cause yeesh.

But "well regualted" means and always meant something to the tune of well trained and supplied. "The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. ". And more importantly " Right of the people " and "Shall not be infringed" are clear and obvious.

[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also ignoring the web 1.0 webpage, why did Scalia argue that this portion of the 2A can be ignored? Cant the state pass laws to maintain the well regulation of arms?

[–] sudo22@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You can ignore that source if you want, there are plenty others. But the fact remains that well regulated does not give the government the right to regulate arms.

[–] sith_lord_zitro@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Art. II, § 6: Right to Bear Arms No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

New Mexico has it in it's constitution that carrying a firearm has been legal since 1911. Concealed was allowed in 2003.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The worst part about this dumb ass talking point is that it implies that the Supreme Court is the source of our inalienable rights

[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

By talking point, you mean how the US constitution was written and the whole point of the supreme court?

Edit: Until congress does their job and pass legislation on these matters, this is unfortunately how the cookie crumbles.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean that rights are inherent to being human, not bestowed by 9 people with law degrees

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're only declared inherent human rights on the very same sheet of paper that defines the rights and codifies them into law. Without the government backing them, they don't mean anything and are just words written on a piece of paper.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The constitution doesn't bestow those rights, it just defines how the government interacts with them

[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I agree in principle, but not in totality (largely due to bad faith arguements). Everyone should have the right to privacy and basic essentials, to carry a glock around wherever not so much.