Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

cowboystatedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#51

Post by kotaKat »

chroma wrote: post #31
15155 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: this isn't a universally-applicable statement, plenty of states forbid DWI during any and all operation of motor vehicles, including on private property.

I think in almost all states DUI applies to private roads accessible to the public, such as parking lots and driveways. Mythbusters drove drunk on a closed course in California and that was legal. Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying o…

If they didn't want you to drink, John Deere wouldn't have put a cupholder on it. C'mon, that's entrapment!

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#52

Post by nullocator »

trollbridge wrote: post #46
mullingitover wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why bother with a thousand cuts when you can just pack the court and do it with one, as was accomplished today when the court effectively struck down the voting rights act?

Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.

That's a funny way of saying they ruled that race-base gerrymandering is legal in effectively all circumstances.

The supreme court's ruling is basically: "Racial gerrymandering is insulated from legal recourse as long as it's packaged as partisan mapmaking"

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#53

Post by mullingitover »

trollbridge wrote: post #46
mullingitover wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why bother with a thousand cuts when you can just pack the court and do it with one, as was accomplished today when the court effectively struck down the voting rights act?

Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.

> Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869.

I'm sorry but this is an unserious, bad faith nitpick. The court is absolutely packed by carefully manipulating the membership. The confirmation process for most of my lifetime has been an intensely partisan operation to ensure only the most hardened political operatives land on the court, with the intention of turning it into the 'super legislature' that it is. This argument does a disservice to the people who worked so hard to pack it.

> The VRA wasn’t struck down either

I mean, that's your opinion. but you're not on the SC and someone who is says that this decision's effect is to "eviscerate the law."

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#54

Post by sidewndr46 »

mullingitover wrote: post #53
trollbridge wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.

> Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. I'm sorry but this is an unserious, bad faith nitpick. The court is absolutely packed by carefully manipulating the membership. The confirmation process for most of my lifetime has been an intensely partisan operation to ensure only the most hardened political operatives land on the court, with the intention of turning it into the 'super legislature'…

packing SCOTUS has always referred to attempts to add justices, which is what was attempted by FDR

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#55

Post by sidewndr46 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #20
iamnothere wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extr…

Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...

This is most definitely completely false. All EPA laws apply to all vehicles originally sold as road legal forever.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#56

Post by mullingitover »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #54
mullingitover wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. I'm sorry but this is an unserious, bad faith nitpick. The court is absolutely packed by carefully manipulating the membership. The confirmation process for most of my lifetime has been an intensely partisan operation to ensure only the most hardened political operatives land on the court, with the intention of turning it into the 'super legislature'…

packing SCOTUS has always referred to attempts to add justices, which is what was attempted by FDR

Incorrect.[1]

[1] https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#57

Post by autoexec »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #29
jmward01 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be fine to print a gun but there will be laws outlawing your ability to print an iphone case and printers will have to detect parts from any registered manufacturer. So we will get the worst of all worlds. printers only for guns and not for people to build useful things.

Unjustified cynicism aside, the same technical reasons that a ban on printing gun parts is infeasible apply to printing iphone cases. There's no feasible way to detect what a printer is printing.

Don't underestimate the state's ability to spy on what you (and your devices) are doing or their willingness to erode your freedom even with massive false positive/negative rates.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#58

Post by sidewndr46 »

mullingitover wrote: post #56
sidewndr46 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

packing SCOTUS has always referred to attempts to add justices, which is what was attempted by FDR

Incorrect.[1] [1] https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

You're welcome to cite whatever modern piece that rewrites to whatever definitions you like. I actively encourage you to stick your head in the sand and scream at the top of your lungs.

The literal public education textbook I was required to learn from explained court packing decades ago as increasing the number of justices to imbalance an existing court, which is explicitly what FDR was trying to do. If the English language has changed that much in my short lifetime, I'm pretty sure I grew up on mars.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#59

Post by doubled112 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #20
iamnothere wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extr…

Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...

Ontario, Canada has stunt driving laws that extend past the road to parking lots, farmer's fields, and more.

Re: Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

#60

Post by autoexec »

PowerElectronix wrote: post #49
jjtheblunt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.

The second protects the first

I'll believe that the moment I see it. Seems to me like most of the 2nd amendment crowd is more likely to cheer on the destruction of freedoms than defend them. There are a whole lot of freedoms being violated in the US right now including violations of people's first amendment rights. You can even go on youtube and find countless examples, but somehow all the bullets seem to be mostly going into suicides, school children, and gang members.

I'm not even saying that shootouts are a good way to handle the situation, or that people should be trying to put things right by shooting other people but the idea that the 2nd amendment is protecting us from violations of our freedoms or the abuses of government is clearly pure fantasy.

Post reply on HN