She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.
Honestly my heart goes out to the defendant. He could easily have been a coworker of mine, and if my coworker told me about his fun hobby making guns without any FFL, smith license, registration or permitting, in this city of all places, I would have dropped everything to talk sense into him.
He sounds like any other gun nerd, but he straight up ignored gun law in a place with famously strict and well-enforced gun laws, and with serious gusto.
I’m kind of surprised he was able to make as many guns as he did before metro police came knocking. This is Brooklyn. You will almost never see plainclothes open carry in NYC, but manufacturing pushes the case into another bracket entirely.
She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.
It does apply. A state can create gun laws but they can’t violate the 2nd amendment.
I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts primarily the federal government, save for 5A and 7A and using either clause to use 2A to override state gun control by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.
No, that isn’t how it works at all. That is a view before the Civil War and partially up till the 1960, but SCOTUS has made it clear. The rights are for everyone, state/federal. The states cannot violate your rights in the constitution.
One of the arguments in Miranda is that the state did not have to follow the 5th Amendment. As you can tell, that did not work as the state thought.
Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review. Which case incorporated 2A? Was it more recent than DC-Heller?
Miranda is from the 1960’s.
Heller is fairly recent but the only reason scotus took the case is states can’t violate the amendments.
Unless you were born in the 1860’s, it’s been fairly well known that the constitution cannot be violated by states on their citizens.
Just so I’m on the same page, we’re still talking about the first 10 (not 13-15, 19, etc.) and the question is whether 2A renders state gun control unconstitutional?
Edit: Also assuming the latter is true, are we then to read 2a as a guarantee to possession of these weapons to citizens carte blanche?The whole Constitution is applied to the states.
“Ghost guns” are protected, theyre just home made guns. Even the atf says so.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use
Allowed at the federal level yes, but state regs differ, and NYS gun law covers the 80% kits (S.14, S.13A).
I certainly wouldn’t pedal New York gun law as the ideal but AFAIK it’s not inconsistent re: unfinished receivers vs traditional firearms.
Edit: I forgot to summarize the local code. In short, dude needed a license, similar to the one needed to handle refrigerants or work on electrical systems. A few months turnaround but isn’t cost-prohibitive: https://thegunzone.com/how-to-become-a-gunsmith-in-ny/
Federal law overrides state law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
The 2nd still applies in NYC
I don’t remember much con law, but I seem to recall using 7a to incorporate 2a is very much a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t prospect, and justices have historically leaned on stare decisis to avoid cutting the knot.
It also says taxes and an ATF anpproval are needed.
Did the subject of the post’s article do that?
Only if they plan to sell it, or if they are making an NFA item.
No that’s a separate clause. You’re misreading.
An American judge in an American coutroom says the American Constitution does not exist.
Yeah poor choice of words. Like someone else said here, her thought process was most likely along the lines that the defendant’s second amendment right isn’t being challenged, as much as the state laws he broke by doing this.
EDIT: Since looking more into the details of this case that’s exactly what is happening. The defendant allegedly broke state laws doing what he did. That’s what the case is about.
I’m guessing based off that the Judge made a terrible attempt at focusing the discussion on the state laws broken vs. dwelling on the second amendment.
The constituion supersedes state laws.
Right, when they conflict. But there are laws against ghost guns in New York that this person allegedly broke, which is why this is happening.
Just because there are laws against ghost guns doesn’t mean your right to own a gun is being infringed upon. This has been proven.
There’s a difference between “manufacture” and “keep and bear”. The constitution only covers the second one.
Paying close attention to the details of the case will be lost on the people this is meant to engage. “A judge said my rights don’t matter!” Sigh…
Yep it’s all just reactionary. All we can do is point it out.
That is an infringment on firearms. There are to no restrictions. Private ciztens bought canons. American citizens are free to manufacture and sell ghost guns.
Yeah……no. Sorry, the right to manufacture weapons is not covered in the constitution. The right to keep and bear them, is.
The second amendment is not a blanket free for all when it comes to guns, as much as you may be told by conservative media. It just allows you to own and defend yourself with them.
It’s in a similar vein to the first amendment, which means you can freely speak out against your government without repercussion and peacefully protest. It does not mean you can use whatever racial slur you want and be protected (just as an example). There are limitations to even the bill of rights my guy.
The Bill of Rights do not mention limits, the Consititutions do not mention limits, there are no limits. People are free to racial slurs, people are free make and sell ghost guns, people are free insult and mock homosexuals.
Sure you can, but you’re not protected to do so and you will face consequences for it.
You can insult and mock whoever you want as long as you’re ready to be accused of a hate crime. It’s your choice in the end. Always was.
This guy in the article chose to make ghost guns even though he lived in a state with laws against that.
The absence of limits in the Bill of Rights is not implied unlimited protection. This has been argued successfully many times over. Your understanding of the text and legal interpretations is lacking.
I’m honestly wondering how she got where she is, who failed?
Maybe to her it’s a matter of "We live in the free country of New York and do not live in the United States of America.
Wasn’t it a woman? (or did I misread)
Either way, this person should be removed and permanently disbarred.
Yup, you’re right. I’ve corrected it.
She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’
Any judge who says this should be removed immediately. The second amendment is valid in all states.
It’ll be an easy one to call for mistrial.
This is how ideological progressives are. They truly don’t believe in the rule of law.
That’s a little accusatory. This particular judge chose their words poorly, but you can’t just apply this blanket statement to a group of people you don’t agree with without something substantial to back your claim up.
Most progressives I know are more into the idea of closing loopholes to more easily obtain guns than taking away someone’s guns or revoking their 2nd amendment right.
This just shows the gap in understanding in the political spectrum. The media has been successful at dividing us :(.
Removed by mod
