• BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      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…

    • uzi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • uzi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • uzi@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Define what is a hate crime that everybody would recognize and agree.

                • uzi@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I reject laws, except for homicide and kidnapping. It can be legal to commit evil, and illegal to do a good act.

                  If someone does something that is not bad but deemed illegal, I would protect them from the law to protect morality. If someone I know carries concealed firearms, that is moral and just. If an intruder breaks into someone’s house, the resident has an obligation to kill the intruder immediately. I help those kinds of people to hide if the law contradicts morality