Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[MaverickNH]

Second Amendment Roundup: Concessions by the Government in the Rahimi Oral Argument

In the November 7 oral argument in U.S. v. Rahimi, the government conceded the fundamental difference between felonies and misdemeanors, which criminal

reason.com

A little more on Rahimi from Halbrook. Good point on the variability of “felony crime” among the 50 states. But lifetime denial of the 2ndA civil right has been variable in the 50 states for a good while. Remember when former-MA residents with a lot of unpaid parking tickets were “fleeing felons”?

”That referred to then-Judge Barrett's dissent in Kanter v. Barr (7th Cir. 2019), in which she favored an as-applied challenge regarding non-violent felons who are not dangerous. In Kanter, and now in Range, the government argues that the ban on felons-in-possession of firearms is valid no matter how harmless the crime or how non-violent the convicted person may be. Since no limit exists to what a legislature may call a felony, no limit would exist on infringements on Second Amendment rights.”

 

[KBCraig]

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh said the sales ban violates the Second Amendment. He determined there isn’t a historical tradition of barring adults from buying pistols, as required for a gun restriction to be constitutional under the Supreme Court’s latest precedent. He blocked enforcement of the law against the plaintiffs in the case and all 18-to-20-year-olds nationwide.

Federal Judge Rules Handgun Sales Ban for 18-20-Year-Olds Unconstitutional

The federal ban on licensed dealers selling pistols to adults under 21 is unconstitutional, according to a ruling issued on Friday.

thereload.com

From this we should see the federal tobacco and alcohol age restrictions overturned. From there, logically and hopefully, federal drug laws.

 

[Coyote33]

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh said ...
... blocked enforcement of the law against the plaintiffs in the case and all 18-to-20-year-olds nationwide.

Is this for real? Right now?

Federal Judge Rules Handgun Sales Ban for 18-20-Year-Olds Unconstitutional

The federal ban on licensed dealers selling pistols to adults under 21 is unconstitutional, according to a ruling issued on Friday.

thereload.com

From this we should see the federal tobacco and alcohol age restrictions overturned. From there, logically and hopefully, federal drug laws.

Yeah, but they don't say WHEN.

 

[milktree]

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh said the sales ban violates the Second Amendment. He determined there isn’t a historical tradition of barring adults from buying pistols, as required for a gun restriction to be constitutional under the Supreme Court’s latest precedent. He blocked enforcement of the law against the plaintiffs in the case and all 18-to-20-year-olds nationwide.

Federal Judge Rules Handgun Sales Ban for 18-20-Year-Olds Unconstitutional

The federal ban on licensed dealers selling pistols to adults under 21 is unconstitutional, according to a ruling issued on Friday.

thereload.com

From this we should see the federal tobacco and alcohol age restrictions overturned. From there, logically and hopefully, federal drug laws.

Old enough to vote/get drafted/sign contracts/go to prison? Then you're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco and pot and guns.

Devil's advocate: Old enough to adopt a child?

 

[Picton]

Yeah, but they don't say WHEN.

Not until a case comes before SCOTUS that applies the same text/history/tradition to drugs as it does to guns. I'm not holding my breath.

What people need to realize is that constitutional law doesn't work like human logic. We can sit here and say, "well, what works for guns should also work for drugs! Duh!" but that's not how judicial review functions. The same judicial logic MIGHT get applied, but it has to wait for a case that'll allow that logic to get applied... and even then, they have to grant cert. Based on the many competing interests involving drugs, I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

[42!]

Not until a case comes before SCOTUS that applies the same text/history/tradition to drugs as it does to guns. I'm not holding my breath.

What people need to realize is that constitutional law doesn't work like human logic. We can sit here and say, "well, what works for guns should also work for drugs! Duh!" but that's not how judicial review functions. The same judicial logic MIGHT get applied, but it has to wait for a case that'll allow that logic to get applied... and even then, they have to grant cert. Based on the many competing interests involving drugs, I doubt that'll ever happen.

I think it's simpler than that in the drugs/alcohol case, there is no right to drugs or alcohol.

 

[Picton]

I think it's simpler than that in the drugs/alcohol case, there is no right to drugs or alcohol.

Yep. That's one of the "many competing interests" I mentioned.

 

[xtry51]

Old enough to vote/get drafted/sign contracts/go to prison? Then you're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco and pot and guns.

Devil's advocate: Old enough to adopt a child?

Yes. Because you can have a child at 13 on average. There is a wide field between "should you be able to" i.e. should it be legal and "should I do this" i.e. making good life choices.

Our aging structure coupled with government nanny state is exactly what has made "children" out of what would have essentially been adults 100 years ago. A "kid" who was 13 in 1900 in the US basically knew everything about living/surviving. That kid would mop the floor with the average 18 year old today.

 

[KBCraig]

I think it's simpler than that in the drugs/alcohol case, there is no right to drugs or alcohol.

Says who?

Remember, it's not that we have rights given by government. We have rights, and a Constitution that limits what government can do. We have a right to everything that government isn't allowed to limit.

 

[Dench]

I think it's simpler than that in the drugs/alcohol case, there is no right to drugs or alcohol.

They thought booze was enough of a right to require an Ammendment to ban it...says a lot.

 

[whatluck]

Old enough to vote/get drafted/sign contracts/go to prison? Then you're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco and pot and guns.

Devil's advocate: Old enough to adopt a child?

Foster care and group homes are pretty much prison. Anyone who has the money for an extra mouth should be able to adopt. I'm not sure my waiting until my mid 30s to have kids really prepared me any more than any other adult of any age who I knew who had kids. I know guys that were 15 when they had their first and those kids grew into well adjusted adults.

 

[whatluck]

I think it's simpler than that in the drugs/alcohol case, there is no right to drugs or alcohol.

The founding fathers had a tradition of growing hemp and brewing beer. That tradition argument can now be extended to all drugs and anything else that the government has tried to control using a balancing test. A lot of stuff is going on the chopping block very soon, like it or not.

All this shit that's been banned/taxed/tariffed/regulated has been used to justify growing the Federal government to the monster it has become.

 

[42!]

The founding fathers had a tradition of growing hemp and brewing beer. That tradition argument can now be extended to all drugs and anything else that the government has tried to control using a balancing test. A lot of stuff is going on the chopping block very soon, like it or not.

All this shit that's been banned/taxed/tariffed/regulated has been used to justify growing the Federal government to the monster it has become.

I can certainly agree as to what the Gov has become, I don't like it and I'll do what I can to work to fix it.

I realize there are "god given", if you prefer that way of putting it, rights, but we are talking about the Gov guaranteed rights, as in those addressed in the Constitution. And in that I do not agree with the validity of your argument. The SCOTUS by it's nature only deals with the rights and laws as defined by the Gov (the Constitution). Natural, or god given, right may exist but those are outside the purview of SCOTUS. Thus, any opinion of the SCOTUS regarding rights only pertains to the rights as defined within the Constitution. You don't get to toss a word salad and try to make them apply to everything. That path leads to the Sovereign Citizen thing and those guys are crazy.

 

[LTCRN]

I'm not sure my waiting until my mid 30s to have kids really prepared me any more than any other adult of any age who I knew who had kids. I know guys that were 15 when they had their first and those kids grew into well adjusted adults.

Lots and lots of factors to consider here!
Right off the top these came to mind: Maturity / entitlement level, financial position, employment security, and housing situation.
All play a vital role in the successful raising of a child!

 

[whatluck]

Lots and lots of factors to consider here!
Right off the top these came to mind: Maturity / entitlement level, financial position, employment security, and housing situation.
All play a vital role in the successful raising of a child!

There's no way that the state could do a better job than an 18 year old. People have been raising kids at that age for eons.

 

[Coyote33]

They thought booze was enough of a right to require an Ammendment to ban it...says a lot.

I saw no mention of age in either the 18th or 21st Amendments.

 

[LTCRN]

There's no way that the state could do a poorer job than an 18 year old. People have been raising kids at that age for eons.

True, but it's much more difficult on average at 18 vs. low 30's or upper 20's even. I know and have worked with plenty of teenage and low 20's Mother's who have been successful. Most really struggled in the beginning and were determined to and did raise very successful children. Of course, all had a support network, mostly their parents, grandparents, or siblings who babysat while the child's parent(s) worked very hard at making their lives better for them and their child(ren).

 

[KBCraig]

I realize there are "god given", if you prefer that way of putting it, rights, but we are talking about the Gov guaranteed rights, as in those addressed in the Constitution.

You mean the same Constitution that says anything not mentioned within is reserved to the states, or to the people?

The Constitution guarantees those rights too.

 

[pastera]

A friend of mine is a gun guy who votes D.

His reasoning is that the Democrats will never accomplish banning guns.

What he really means is they won't accomplish banning them in HIS lifetime, screw everyone else.

 

[MaverickNH]

Lots and lots of factors to consider here!
Right off the top these came to mind: Maturity / entitlement level, financial position, employment security, and housing situation.
All play a vital role in the successful raising of a child!

True, but it's much more difficult on average at 18 vs. low 30's or upper 20's even. I know and have worked with plenty of teenage and low 20's Mother's who have been successful. Most really struggled in the beginning and were determined to and did raise very successful children. Of course, all had a support network, mostly their parents, grandparents, or siblings who babysat while the child's parent(s) worked very hard at making their lives better for them and their child(ren).

Fatherlessness is a huge factor in failed child rearing, but surrogates (other parental figures) can fill the void. Economic and HS graduation statistics for married Black families far and away beat those of single-female White parent families - it’s not race, it’s the family structure that matters most.

 

[pastera]

Fatherlessness is a huge factor in failed child rearing, but surrogates (other parental figures) can fill the void. Economic and HS graduation statistics for married Black families far and away beat those of single-female White parent families - it’s not race, it’s the family structure that matters most.

Nothing replaces an intact, male and female biological parent household.
A M/F adoptive household comes in a far second.
Close extended families can strongly amplify a strong household

 

[headednorth]

Fatherlessness is a huge factor in failed child rearing, but surrogates (other parental figures) can fill the void. Economic and HS graduation statistics for married Black families far and away beat those of single-female White parent families - it’s not race, it’s the family structure that matters most.

When 70%+ are raised without fathers is it still not a race thing?

 

[general disorder]

The role of fathers have been greatly poo pooed in today's society. along with stay at home mom's.

 

[PappyM3]

Old enough to vote/get drafted/sign contracts/go to prison? Then you're old enough to buy alcohol and tobacco and pot and guns.

Devil's advocate: Old enough to adopt a child?

Old enough to make a child.

Adoption is not a right and understandably subject to restrictions. That said, yeah I think 18 is old enough to adopt for specific circumstances: 18 year old who is responsible and has a special existing relationship with a child who needs adoption and would be better off with the 18 year old than in the system. E.g. an older brother or sister with no other family and the parents die. That type of thing.

 

[KBCraig]

Is this for real? Right now?



Yeah, but they don't say WHEN.

There is no delay given. The defendants (ATF) are enjoined from enforcing the law as of 12/1/2023.

 

[LTCRN]

Fatherlessness is a huge factor in failed child rearing, but surrogates (other parental figures) can fill the void. Economic and HS graduation statistics for married Black families far and away beat those of single-female White parent families - it’s not race, it’s the family structure that matters most.

Race was never mentioned, until you responded. The women that I initially was describing and had the most contact with outside of and on the job were probably 99% white, if you want a statistic. There were a few teenage Mother's that finished high school, ended up marrying their baby Daddy, only to divorce them later on in life after they went back to school and obtained an A.S., B.S., or Masters Degree. The one's that never married their baby Daddy's and obtained the same degree level as the married one's, lived a much better life and so did their child(ren). They didn't have to live or deal with a drunk or drug addicted deadbeat non contributing poor example of a Father their entire upbringing. Because of their educated profession, the women made enough money to support themselves and their children and gave up chasing or dragging the deadbeats ass to court. There were two that I can remember that were physically abused while married until there 20 year old son's put an end to it. The FD found the husband's drunk, unconscious, battered, and bruised body at the bottom of the basement stairs. Both never laid a hand on their now former spouse again for some reason.

 

[milktree]

I think it's simpler than that in the drugs/alcohol case, there is no right to drugs or alcohol.

Cool. Now do "wear a red shirt" or "sing in Latin". We don't have those rights either, right? I don't see either in The Constitution.

What you're saying is, "we've accepted arbitrary restrictions on drugs and alcohol", which is not the same as "not a right"

 

[MaverickNH]

When 70%+ are raised without fathers is it still not a race thing?

Race was never mentioned, until you responded. The women that I initially was describing and had the most contact with outside of and on the job were probably 99% white, if you want a statistic.

Looking at our nation’s cultural regions, which have drifted some in centuries but are still largely intact, within those regions (and subregions as created by metro-city areas), income and education relate less to race and more with family structure.

I’ll quote Thomas Sowell from his new book Social Justice Failure: “For more than a quarter of a century, in no year has the annual poverty rate of black married-couple families been as high as 10%. And in no year has the poverty rate of Americans as a whole been as low as 10%.” For example, if you drill down, you find poverty/education deficits in the Appalachians is related to White single-mother families and in the NE to Black single-mother families. As Sowell asks, how do racists and their racist institutions & policies work that trick? The phrase “ White N*ggers”, still used in hushed conversations in the Appalachians and White Creole regions of LA & TX) Is but not found written or spoken in public, and reflects that sense of dismay - that White folks could be as bad off as Black folks, if not worse, without White Supremacy to blame.

Truancy rates are higher in poor school districts throughout the country, but are highest where single-parent households are higher across all races.

I don’t doubt your experience @LTCRN, but different job roles bring people into contact with selected segments of the population. The 99% white statistic you mentioned as having had contact with - could that have been due to relatively fewer non-Whites in the region and/or that non-White population’s lower utilization of services?

 

[42!]

Cool. Now do "wear a red shirt" or "sing in Latin". We don't have those rights either, right? I don't see either in The Constitution.

What you're saying is, "we've accepted arbitrary restrictions on drugs and alcohol", which is not the same as "not a right"

No, don't put words in my mouth. I'm simply saying that the availability of drugs and alcohol are not garenteid in the constitution. I'm sure if I missed the line that says they are you'd be able to point it out.

And don't confuse a recognition that they are not a "right" with a belief they should be outlawed. I believe all drugs should be legal and that those who use them incorrectly should be left accountable for their bad decision. Everybody get one shot of narcan (because people make mistakes), the next time, you are on your own.

 

[LTCRN]

I don’t doubt your experience @LTCRN, but different job roles bring people into contact with selected segments of the population. The 99% white statistic you mentioned as having had contact with - could that have been due to relatively fewer non-Whites in the region and/or that non-White population’s lower utilization of services?

View attachment 823363

The region where I worked has a large Cape Verdean population also. Going back to when I was a teenager and in low 20's, I worked in a warehouse on Blue Hill Ave, directly in front of the Franklin Hill projects. The population consisted of almost completely black. I observed, listened, and learned both inside and outside of the building. It was heartbreaking to see another 13-17 year old girl summer after summer with a big round belly coming down from the project. The same I'm sure happened elsewhere regardless of the color of their skin. Almost all came from what used to be considered dysfunctional households. I guess I forgot to include geographical areas too but in today's world, dysfunction isn't relegated strictly to populated areas. The categories that I initially listed were quick to come to mind. I will never argue against having a decent Father figure playing a vital role in a child's upbringing, but my interpretation of decent may be different from yours or others. It's time to move on and get this thread back on topic.