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

91–96 of 96 posts

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

#91

Post by cucumber3732842 »

jmward01 wrote: post #15
akersten wrote: post #4

Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?

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.

Unironically this because guns have fairly stringent constitutional protections and lots of jurisprudence to that effect whereas flimsy hand wavy bullshit about public good is enough to regulate anything else.

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

#92

Post by rcoveson »

autoexec wrote: post #82
rcoveson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't work with the second amendment though because one side has guns and the other side has guns and tanks and drones and nukes and the ability to control all public communication networks, etc. I don't want to be too blunt, but this is the "uninformed" I was talking about. The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The ability to level cities is not actually that helpful when the goa…

> The same asymmetry was present in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Those also occurred overseas. The government didn't already have control over the population like they do here. They didn't have massive amounts of data on every last person there, and everyone those people knew. They hadn't been tracking all of their movements. If the founding fathers had tried to gain independence while still in Brittan the fight w…

Your acceptance criteria for a last line of defense is pretty strict. Governments break the rules, a lot. If we tried to overthrow every government that broke the rules we'd be in a permanent state of violent revolution.

You don't seem like a violent person; quite the opposite. Most people are like that, myself included. I'm mad at the government. Steaming mad, even. But killing? Not even remotely close.

I get that it's easy to discount low-probability futures as meaningless, but I won't do that either. Maybe the insurance policy that is the 2nd amendment has paid out $0 so far. I don't think that's the case, but for the sake of argument let's say it's so. Even if it were so, history and current events indicate to me that we should keep paying for the policy. We think we've got it bad now, but our guy is an absolute kitten compared to some of the tyrants our species has cooked up.

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

#93

Post by rtkwe »

yieldcrv wrote: post #47
rtkwe wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand how the courts work. No other court would rule on this case because it wouldn't be heard in another circuit and the Supreme Court is the ONLY court anyone can appeal to after a circuit court, the only other options are convening a larger group for an en banc hearing but that doesn't apply here afaik.

I was trying to save Colorado taxpayers and people that disagree some time and energy. To focus on what they can control which isn’t this. Additionally I was alluding to the process of using a other circuit by bringing a case in another state that has similar laws as Colorado, thats the only way for a potential circuit split, forcing SCOTUS review.

Splits don't actually force the Supreme Court to take it up on any thing approaching an immediate time frame. There was a split about what "exceeding authorized access" meant in CFAA for ~10 years before the Supreme Court deigned to take it up and resolve the difference.

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

#94

Post by rtkwe »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #43
rtkwe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, it's only /binding/ on courts in the same District but they are often persuasive when cited in other districts if the decision is well reasoned and less controversial. This one will likely be contested, the circuits have very different ideas about gun rights.

If even the district court rules this way it's hard to see a World where the supreme court doesn't also rule that way. Unless there's been court packing by then of course.

I've given up trying to logic out what the court will decide on many issues, they're quite willing to find new legal arguments to allow their preferred outcome in a particular case.

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

#95

Post by alphawhisky »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #58
mullingitover wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No because if you grew up on mars you'd deport yourself. Go eat one.

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

#96

Post by MertMelfa »

StefanBatory wrote: post #24
15155 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation. What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

If it's talking about a vibrant system where everyone of legal age and health is armed and ready for battle, in regular military training exercises, regular militia duty.. then we don't have one here yet. We should have one like early America had, activated by statute.
Post reply on HN