Robert Hairless said:
Anyone who talks about "the uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is simply not in touch with reality. Individuals have no right to keep and bear arms in the entire State of New York. It can't be infringed there because it doesn't exist there. Federal Judge Norman A. Mordue ruled that it didn't in Bach v. Pataki, a case decided in 2003.
Robert, you have this exactly backward. Everyone in this country has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's no different than everyone's right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers. It's no different from everyone's right to be free from double jeopardy. Regardless of how you perceive things, the truth about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in New York is that it is infringed. I take the word of our Founding Fathers and the ratification of the Second Amendment by the several states over the machinations of one judge. Not only that, I understand why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been protected as it is in the Constitution. It makes sense.
Besides, the inability of Judge Mordue to read and understand the Second Amendment is not cause to accept his misreading as fact simply because he is a judge. On his power to interpret the law there is little question. He has no power to interpret the Constitution, however. The Constitution has been written in plain language. "...shall not be infringed" is not in any way unclear.
In all the text in that case, there is no explanation as to why the judge said the Second Amendment does not protect a right of the individual("people" being the plural of "individual"). He simply threw that statement out there, just like the Court in
US v. Miller pulled the statement out of thin air that arms must meet some useful militia purpose to be included in any arms the keeping and bearing of which would be protected by the Second Amendment.
Any such call would be in the purview of Congress(Article III, Section 2, Clause (2)), but since Congress is among those prohibited to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, there can never be any such call.
Robert Hairless said:
If enough gun owners continue to behave like lunatics and threaten people whose goodwill and votes they desparately need, the chances are very good that federal courts in even more states will rule as Mordue did. Even the most objective and learned jurist is a person too. Never threaten people who can decide your fate, and never call them names. It is Not Real Good Thinking to do so.
You got that backward, too. Those who are in those positions hold those positions at the mercy and good graces of the people who put them there. That's
US. We the People. Anyone in such a position who would take offense and exact personal revenge upon anyone for standing up for their rights needs to be removed from office
immediately. Such a person in such a position obviously cannot apply the law with proper discretion and is not of good character, nor is such a person acting in good behavior. That behavior is cause for impeachment and subject to prosecution as well in good order.
Is there any such employee of the people you are aware of? Let the rest of us know so we might throw the bum out.
Woody
God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood