Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Garys]

Everyone should have free speech, not everyone should vote.

I'm going to guess that you fashion yourself a Libertarian.

Soooo, not everyone should be allowed to vote??? Or have free speech????

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Soooo, not everyone should be allowed to vote??? Or have free speech????

There are merits to a shareholder system. Everyone is 100% accountable before the law (in theory) so one person one vote on criminal law. But, people who are net takers should be disqualified from voting on things like taxes and overrides on the basis of conflict of interest.

 

[BigGreen2000]

In 1776, it was “no taxation without representation.” Now it’s half the country “representation without taxation”!

 

[42!]

There are merits to a shareholder system. Everyone is 100% accountable before the law (in theory) so one person one vote on criminal law. But, people who are net takers should be disqualified from voting on things like taxes and overrides on the basis of conflict of interest.

But couldn't this argument be used to say criminals shouldn't vote on criminal laws?

 

[cfbackrow]

the full transcript is here:

View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZlVbtI2h9-Qp14ryTeREeoR-Sj-fpxev/view

read the whole thing....well worth the read....damn I like the way that judge wants to keep the cases moving

 

[VetteGirlMA]

LOL

I recall on "another gun board" there were people there that were adamant that only landholders could vote. Or should be allowed to vote. Tehn they got to the point of "well, you need so much land to vote. In fact, your vote should be commensurate with your landholdings."

They thought they were freedom but it turns out they wanted a feudal system of government. LOL. Basically, they thought that they could game around giving people they didn't like the right to vote.

As wrong as it may seem at times, I will always fight that the scum of this country have a RIGHT to vote. And carry a gun. And say what they want. It's the price of freedom for the rest of us.

I'm with you. Anyone should be able to vote, carry a gun, speak their mind and not have to fear the police for saying what they want and also carrying a gun.

 

[JFR2]

The mag limit, AWB and two other cases are before benetiz in California now. He seems to be enjoying himself.

This is a great read. Now we know why they call him, "Saint Benitez."

-JR

 

[Hoover]

read the whole thing....well worth the read....damn I like the way that judge wants to keep the cases moving

When the cases started up again in august after the NYSRPA vs bruen, the state of California has been trying to delay things. They proposed an extremely slow schedule because they realize they don’t have any facts on their side and the current SCOTUS won’t be helpful. All the anti states are basically trying to stall things for years and hope the composition of SCOTUS changes, it’s their only hope

 

[milktree]

In 1776, it was “no taxation without representation.” Now it’s half the country “representation without taxation”!

Everyone pays taxes. This nonsense about "people who pay no taxes" is disingenuous, at best.

Sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, social security tax, medicare tax, property tax, alcohol tax, etc.

There's lots and lots of taxes beyond "federal income tax".

 

[KBCraig]

Everyone pays taxes. This nonsense about "people who pay no taxes" is disingenuous, at best.

Sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, social security tax, medicare tax, property tax, alcohol tax, etc.

There's lots and lots of taxes beyond "federal income tax".

Yes, just like people who think renters don't pay property tax.

Nonsense. Every single government-added cost of doing business is a tax on the end consumer.

 

[BigGreen2000]

The vast majority of the federal budget (60%, 80%?) is made up of transfer-payments, or entitlement spending: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those programs are paid for mostly (>50%) by federal income tax on the top 5% of Americans. There is a very sizable, if not majority, of Americans who are very much net tax recipients. Especially in blue states, the budget is balanced by a shrinking pool of high-earners .

 

[Hoover]

The vast majority of the federal budget (60%, 80%?) is made up of transfer-payments, or entitlement spending: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those programs are paid for mostly (>50%) by federal income tax on the top 5% of Americans. There is a very sizable, if not majority, of Americans who are very much net tax recipients. Especially in blue states, the budget is balanced by a shrinking pool of high-earners .

The budget isn’t close to being balanced.

 

[Bastiat]

People are more likely to react (vote) to feelings than to facts.

It is the reason why people work to control names because if you can switch between one with an emotional element and one with out or back, you can control how many emotional votes you get. Death Tax - Inheritance Tax, Illegal Immigrant - Undocumented Immigrant, Modern Sporting Rifle - Assaut Rifle. Go one way to bring out your votes or the other way to keep opponents at home.

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/next-time-you-end-up-in-an-argument-dont-use-facts-do-this-instead.html

 

[milktree]

The vast majority of the federal budget (60%, 80%?) is made up of transfer-payments, or entitlement spending: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Those programs are paid for mostly (>50%) by federal income tax on the top 5% of Americans. There is a very sizable, if not majority, of Americans who are very much net tax recipients. Especially in blue states, the budget is balanced by a shrinking pool of high-earners .

This is, at best, a gross misrepresentation.

Red states tend to get more from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes, sometimes by a lot.

Are Taxpayers in Your State Giving More Money to the Feds than They Get Back?

Our visualization shows how much money the federal government collects and allocates back to projects in each state, revealing who is shouldering more of their fair share of the tax burden, and who is taking a free ride.

howmuch.net

The states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back are (nearly) all blue states: CT, NJ, MA, CA, NY, IL, WA, CO, ND, NH, and NE.

Check out the huge ass benefits some of those red states get from the federal government.


Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are capped at a little under $150k earnings; it's paid by everyone, even those who make $5k a year. If you make $2B/year, you pay the same Social Security tax as someone who makes $150k. Plus, it's a flat rate, so the vast majority of Social Security tax is paid by the bottom 95%, not the top 5%.

All those high earners paying the highest (federal) income tax? Where do you think they live? Not West Virginia or Kentucky. They're mostly living in New York City, San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston, Hartford, etc.


And to suggest that "entitlements" are somehow inherently bad, I'd like you to examine why people get VA benefits, or social security. They paid into them or are contractually entitled through military service.

There may be fewer "high earners" (I didn't check this) but they tend to be "making" a *lot* more money. Imagine instead of the upper middle, middle, and lower middle classes were so huge they paid all the taxes. That seems like a good thing for everyone, right?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

People are more likely to react (vote) to feelings than to facts.

It is the reason why people work to control names because if you can switch between one with an emotional element and one with out or back, you can control how many emotional votes you get. Death Tax - Inheritance Tax, Illegal Immigrant - Undocumented Immigrant, Modern Sporting Rifle - Assaut Rifle. Go one way to bring out your votes or the other way to keep opponents at home.

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/next-time-you-end-up-in-an-argument-dont-use-facts-do-this-instead.html

Works both ways. Gambling => Gaming.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Works both ways. Gambling => Gaming.

Are we classing up my scratchies?

 

[pastera]

Okay so a disabled veteran no vote if they take any benefits. A person born blind, no vote if they take any benefits. A person who gets injured in a motorcycle accident and is a quadriplegic gets no vote if they take benefits. A guy who worked his whole life and can no longer work anymore due to a work related injury no vote, provided they accept any benefits. Sounds like a fair system....... in another universe.

The correct answer is there should be no benefits paid from the public coffers.
A disabled veteran receiving pay is not a benefit, it is simply part of the contracted compensation.
Motorcycle accident? Why should those who were not involved pay? Personal responsibility and insurance should suffice.

Our compassion has become a financial noose. Our compulsion to care for those in need has been codified as a right to access the wallets of the productive.

Am I saying let the poor and sick fend for themselves, no. However the threshold for help needs to move back to those who cannot support themselves instead of those who find it more convenient not to support themselves.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The correct answer is there should be no benefits paid from the public coffers.
A disabled veteran receiving pay is not a benefit, it is simply part of the contracted compensation.
Motorcycle accident? Why should those who were not involved pay? Personal responsibility and insurance should suffice.

Our compassion has become a financial noose. Our compulsion to care for those in need has been codified as a right to access the wallets of the productive.

Am I saying let the poor and sick fend for themselves, no. However the threshold for help needs to move back to those who cannot support themselves instead of those who find it more convenient not to support themselves.

I see two fundamental flaws in the way people think that screw up society:

1) The belief that having a "need" give one the "right to take".

2) The inability to understand the difference between some that happens "to you" vs something that is the result of your decisions and actions.

 

[cfbackrow]

This is, at best, a gross misrepresentation.

Red states tend to get more from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes, sometimes by a lot.

Are Taxpayers in Your State Giving More Money to the Feds than They Get Back?

Our visualization shows how much money the federal government collects and allocates back to projects in each state, revealing who is shouldering more of their fair share of the tax burden, and who is taking a free ride.

howmuch.net

The states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back are (nearly) all blue states: CT, NJ, MA, CA, NY, IL, WA, CO, ND, NH, and NE.

Check out the huge ass benefits some of those red states get from the federal government.


Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are capped at a little under $150k earnings; it's paid by everyone, even those who make $5k a year. If you make $2B/year, you pay the same Social Security tax as someone who makes $150k. Plus, it's a flat rate, so the vast majority of Social Security tax is paid by the bottom 95%, not the top 5%.

All those high earners paying the highest (federal) income tax? Where do you think they live? Not West Virginia or Kentucky. They're mostly living in New York City, San Francisco, Washington DC, Boston, Hartford, etc.


And to suggest that "entitlements" are somehow inherently bad, I'd like you to examine why people get VA benefits, or social security. They paid into them or are contractually entitled through military service.

There may be fewer "high earners" (I didn't check this) but they tend to be "making" a *lot* more money. Imagine instead of the upper middle, middle, and lower middle classes were so huge they paid all the taxes. That seems like a good thing for everyone, right?

uhm there are many many thousands of people perhaps millions....who have never paid into social security and receive them....first big class of people are spousal benefits...second big class are "disabled"

 

[Rob Boudrie]

uhm there are many many thousands of people perhaps millions....who have never paid into social security and receive them....first big class of people are spousal benefits...second big class are "disabled"

It's still like insurance since those people were mandated to pay for life if they are able to, so they were still participants in the pooled risk.

 

[Picton]

The correct answer is there should be no benefits paid from the public coffers.
A disabled veteran receiving pay is not a benefit, it is simply part of the contracted compensation.
Motorcycle accident? Why should those who were not involved pay? Personal responsibility and insurance should suffice.

Our compassion has become a financial noose. Our compulsion to care for those in need has been codified as a right to access the wallets of the productive.

Am I saying let the poor and sick fend for themselves, no. However the threshold for help needs to move back to those who cannot support themselves instead of those who find it more convenient not to support themselves.

I agree with this post 100%.

But the issue is: Who decides what that threshold is, exactly?

The devil's in the details. The days of being able to rely on poor relief from parishioners disappeared with the rise of cities. Reversing that now? Seems like the kind of thing that's likely to happen, but only on its own schedule. If you know what I mean.

 

[Dennis in MA]

But couldn't this argument be used to say criminals shouldn't vote on criminal laws?

EXACTLY!

As if the income tax is the ONLY tax that people pay in this country.

Federal taxes that people are subject to:

INCOME
Gasoline tax
Alcohol tax
Tobacco tax

I guess if you don't pay ANY taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote on taxes. LOL.

"Now hold on, Dennis. Most folks pay lots more in income tax than in alcohol or tobacco taxes, so. . . ." Great. Now we're back to the 'your say in government is commensurate with the amount of land you own.' Feudal system, here we come!



I've said it 50 or 60 times here, at least. It still rings true: People claim they want a free society. What they want is a fascist government - as long as they 100% agree with the fascists in charge.

Freedom comes with risks. There is absolute certainty with a lack of freedom. The certainty is that you're gonna get F'd at some point. Hard. No lube. Repeatedly. At least with Freedom you have a chance at not F'ing it up.

How anyone on a gun board could say they are for LESS freedom just utterly shocks me. I can't even. "Well, I don't like that part of the Constitution, so let's just see if we can find a way around it. . . so I feel safer." UnF'ing'real.

Some of you should watch Bridge Over the River Kwai (sp???). Alec Guinness has an outstanding performance of a man who gets caught up in wanting X and realizing he was doing Y all along. Thankfully, in his dying moment, he fixed it all. It's how this always ends. People claiming they want a little LESS freedom in order to feel better. Then everything goes to S-word and they somehow conveniently forget they were the start of it all.

I am totally disheartened today.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I guess if you don't pay ANY taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote on taxes. LOL.

No, but if you don't pay property taxes you should not be able to vote on them - especially if you are being funded by your parents and have no personal skin in the game. I can understand why communities have (generally unsuccessfully) attempted to declare college students who are only in town for 75% of the year as "ineligible to vote".

 

[pastera]

I agree with this post 100%.

But the issue is: Who decides what that threshold is, exactly?

The devil's in the details. The days of being able to rely on poor relief from parishioners disappeared with the rise of cities. Reversing that now? Seems like the kind of thing that's likely to happen, but only on its own schedule. If you know what I mean.

Unfortunately the threshold is not set in stone since everyone and every situation is different.
Was in the azores last month and a guy in a a wheel chair was setting floor tile.
No legs but still putting food on the table.
And understand those homes are hundreds of years old stone structures so everything is done manually.

We shouldn't be in the business of giving money away - anyone who gets support should be put to work at the level of their capability, even if that's more inefficient than just giving them money.

 

[JFR2]

Any chance we can pull this thread back on target? There's some NYS Bruen-type stuff going on (petition to SCOTUS on CCIA injunction) that might be getting lost in the chatter about taxes.

-JR

 

[KBCraig]

Can we get back to Bruen, instead of arguing about tax schemes?

 

[MaverickNH]

Pretextually Eliminating the Right to Bear Arms through Gerrymandered Property Rules | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

“…[others argue] states should have the power to flip the default rule so that guns are banned unless property owners say otherwise. Flipping the default rule creates a de facto ban on public carry because most private property owners do not post signs either allowing or restricting firearms.

… Although a default no-carry rule results in a drastic near-complete ban on public carry, it is not so easy to explain why this is unconstitutional.”

That reminds me of the lab I worked in that had a red flashing light when everything was fine. If dangerous gas levels rose above a hazardous level, the flashing stopped. It took a lab tech passing out to get the EHS guys reoriented to defaults: emergency = red flashing light.

In this case, it’s trickier to find an exact parallel, for judicial purposes.
1. Require posting a sign on your door that entry and search by police w/o a warrant is not permitted? Police are government and exercising power not rights.
2. Require posting a sign in private venues allowing people to peaceably assemble? Maybe closer.

As the article surmises, flipping the DEA fault rule to requirement of a sign permitting CCW is just a pretext for banning guns. But the usually anti-2ndA courts will pretend otherwise until forced to toe the SCOTUS line.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Pretextually Eliminating the Right to Bear Arms through Gerrymandered Property Rules | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

“…[others argue] states should have the power to flip the default rule so that guns are banned unless property owners say otherwise. Flipping the default rule creates a de facto ban on public carry because most private property owners do not post signs either allowing or restricting firearms.

… Although a default no-carry rule results in a drastic near-complete ban on public carry, it is not so easy to explain why this is unconstitutional.”

That reminds me of the lab I worked in that had a red flashing light when everything was fine. If dangerous gas levels rose above a hazardous level, the flashing stopped. It took a lab tech passing out to get the EHS guys reoriented to defaults: emergency = red flashing light.

In this case, it’s trickier to find an exact parallel, for judicial purposes.
1. Require posting a sign on your door that entry and search by police w/o a warrant is not permitted? Police are government and exercising power not rights.
2. Require posting a sign in private venues allowing people to peaceably assemble? Maybe closer.

As the article surmises, flipping the DEA fault rule to requirement of a sign permitting CCW is just a pretext for banning guns. But the usually anti-2ndA courts will pretend otherwise until forced to toe the SCOTUS line.

It's harder to define because it's inane.

The American system operates on theory of Negative Rights. Unless the law says otherwise, you're free to do what you'd like. This law flips that to a spectrum of Positive Rights - prohibited unless specifically allowed. It's at odds with the core of our principle of rights.

That means it's on whoever is proposing it to explain why the idea is valid, not on the respondents to invalidate.

 

[Dennis in MA]

No, but if you don't pay property taxes you should not be able to vote on them - especially if you are being funded by your parents and have no personal skin in the game. I can understand why communities have (generally unsuccessfully) attempted to declare college students who are only in town for 75% of the year as "ineligible to vote".

Ok, Lord Boudrie.

 

[MaverickNH]

No, but if you don't pay property taxes you should not be able to vote on them - especially if you are being funded by your parents and have no personal skin in the game. I can understand why communities have (generally unsuccessfully) attempted to declare college students who are only in town for 75% of the year as "ineligible to vote".

I get the sentiment. Earl Butz was right! But it get’s pretty complicated trying to figure who qualifies to vote on what. Most of what we piss and moan about on NES are things that do not directly impact us, but indirectly do/might.