2nd Circuit Upholds New York Handgun Permit Limits

[richyoung]

From a ethical perspective, slavery was never a State's rights issue, as slavery is never a valid Power for any actor, state, soveriegn or citizen to wield.

Not that i don't LOVE playing "devil's advocate".... BUT what do you mean "slavery is never a valid power"? In what sense? The Bible, (and we are a Judeo-Christian society, whether we chose to admit it or not) spells out clearly the duties of a slave to his owner, and vice-versa. Slavery was legal in much of the U.S. at various times, making it a valid power. What are childrem if not "slaves" to their parents? (I certainly remember being compelled to perform uncompensated labor.... ) Lastley, how can you possibly have conscripted soldiers or prisoners, without implimenting slavery? The fact that we CHOOSE to prevent private citizens NOW from exercising this power (unless they own or are employed by a private detention facility) in no way means it is an invalid power, now or ever.

 

[longrifleman]

And they were wrong about State's rights, weren't they? It took a civil war to find that out. The problem was addressed by the 14th amendment.

They weren't wrong at all about state's rights. The theory was sound, in my opinion, but has been re-defined to mean something bad (racisim). It is almost impossible to mention the phrase without being immediately labeld as a closet member of the KKK. This plays well for the people who want no resistance to their plan of total centralization of power in the FEDGOV.

The centralizers are perfectly willing to use state's rights when it suits them to advance their cause through incremental changes, such as the .50 ban in CA, with the intent of it spreading to the entire country. If the concept was being used honestly, the folks in CA could have their socialist utopia and the rest of us could watch as they destroy themselves and we could learn from their mistakes. That was the idea behind state's rights.

Unfortunately, now we are all expected to pick up the tab when their system collapses. I'm not picking on CA only, just using them as an example. We could find plenty of other problems to laugh at; or get mad about.

 

[RealGun]

The fact that we CHOOSE to prevent private citizens NOW from exercising this power (unless they own or are employed by a private detention facility) in no way means it is an invalid power, now or ever.

That will work fine for you until you picture yourself being the slave. How about having your wife or daughter at your master's disposal with nothing you can do about it.

Think "freedom" and "liberty"..."all men created equal". What changed the rules of history was the concept of the United States. It just took awhile to force people to start living up to the lofty words. It was damned inconvenient, that's all.

I just expect to move freely among States without keeping track of which of my rights or what duly granted or licensed status is curtailed or invalidated at a State line. When a State defeats a purpose of establishing the United States, I have a problem with that.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

This really would be an interesting case to see work its way up to the Supremes.

Regardless, it kinda underscores the importance of Bush's judicial appointees, doesn't it? For example, does anybody have any doubts as to how Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would rule on it?

I'd like to see ALL judicial nominees questioned about this case as a genuine litmus test. Then, we can sit back and laugh as senators Feinstein-Schumer-Corzine-Billary et al rant about "protecting the children."

CHALLENGE:
Maybe some of the oppressed pro-2A "liberals" here could push Dr. Howard ("guns are no longer a Democrat issue") Dean to decry this New York ruling... and push for its eventual reversal! Where's the ACLU when you need 'em to fight for ALL the Bill Of Rights' INDIVIDUAL rights?

Calling all pro-gun liberals! Calling Dr. Dean!

This is a test, boys and girls.

And let's see what the NRA does with this hot potato.

 

[RealGun]

I think it is a good case to be appealed, because it is already argued on constitutional grounds. I would help finance the effort.