• transigence@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I’m not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?

        • transigence@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.

            The type of “arms” are unspecified.

            To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.

        There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.

        The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.

        It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.

        The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.

        • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, that’s a nice wall of text, but it isn’t going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn’t enforcing it, and the state AG isn’t even defending it apparently.

    • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.

      “The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” Urias said during the hearing.

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?

        What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.

        At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.