Now New Yorkers are resurrecting the old “blood in the street, gunfights over parking spots” argument- you know, the things that they always say, but never seem to happen. We in Florida have been hearing all of that since 1989, and it just doesn’t happen.
An armed society is a polite society. When you know that you may have to pay for your words and actions with your life, you tend to be more polite.
New York has come up with a genius plan for circumventing the recent SCOTUS decision: they want to declare all of NY a “gun free zone,” this proving that they haven’t actually read the decision. If they HAD read it, they would know that SCOTUS already rejected that argument:
That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded
SCOTUS releases decision in NY pistol case, ruling that New York’s means test is unconstitutional. The decision can be found here (pdf alert). A couple of money quotes:
Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.”
Here is another gem where SCOTUS declares that we have a right to bear arms outside of the home:
The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
There are also some phrases that may come back to haunt gun owners because they discuss historical restrictions that form the basis of what the court would find constitutional. For example:
the common-law offenses of “affray” or going armed “to the terror
of the people” continued to impose some limits on firearm carry in the
antebellum period.
It seems like the court is saying that either concealed or open carry must at a minimum be permitted:
In the early to mid-19th century, some States began enacting laws that proscribed the concealed carry of pistols and other small weapons. But the antebellum state-court decisions upholding them evince a consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the public carry of arms protected by the Second Amendment or state analogues.
or this one that I can see as the foundation for a challenge to “assault weapons”:
The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
There is a lot here, and a further review by someone more knowledgeable than I is needed. One thing is for sure: the lower courts will be visiting this topic for years, but at least we have a win for gun rights.
Back in 2012, I posted about something from my past that applies to the whole “red flag” debate. I’m going to repost it here.
2003
Three minutes after the initial call to 911, we arrived at
the front of a small, well-kept house, a typical one for the area. There
are toys scattered about the yard, undoubtedly left there by a small
child.
The first through the door, I arrive in a rush and take in
the scene. Even now, nineteen years later, that image is burned into my
memory as clearly as if it were yesterday. There is a small child lying
on the couch in the living room, a small pitiful figure, his skin is a
mottled gray. He is covered in water and appears lifeless.
An adult male is standing next to the couch. He is soaked from the waist down, his clothing disheveled; his eyes red-rimmed, he looks like a wild man. I will not find out that this man was the child’s uncle for
another fifteen minutes.
I pick up the child, and he is cold. He does not stir, even when I harshly pinch his arm. I move to the door to the safety and privacy of the truck.
On the way out to my ambulance, I quickly look him over. He is about three years old, 12 kilos or so. Lying lifeless in my arms, he doesn’t appear to be doing very well. He isn’t breathing and has no pulse. My mind already computing drug dosages and accessing protocols, I reach for my radio and called in a “code” to the dispatch center.
I place my lips over the child’s mouth, and give gentle breaths. Chest compressions. Breaths.
We arrive at the truck, and I select the proper sized ET tube, and slide
it down his throat. My partner begins squeezing the bag, and I start an
IV.
I place him on the monitor, and I note that he is in asystole. Not good.
I spent the next 40 minutes fighting the battle that I knew we had lost before we even arrived.
As the helicopter flew away, taking with it the small, pitiful body once
so full of life, so precious to all who knew him, his Uncle approached
and asked me what he should tell his brother. He wanted to know how to tell a man that his baby boy drowned in a backyard pool while his Uncle took a shower. He then put his head on my shoulder, wrapped his arms around me and cried for the next ten minutes.
I went back to the station, numb. I didn’t know what to feel. All I knew was that I was empty, spent. In the weeks that followed, I had a harder and harder time going to work and functioning. I finally told my supervisor, who referred me to CISM. I was in therapy for that call for a while. It was hard to deal with. I even took anti-depressant medication for about 6 months. It was tough living with the ghosts of that call. I still get teary eyed sometimes when I think about that day, about what I could have done differently. Normal reactions, I think, to such a tragedy.
There are those who would deny me the right to own a firearm because I feel pain at the loss of a child. They wish to see people lose their rights without a hearing or a trial, simply because they sought help when they needed it. Millions of Americans seek therapy, take anti-depressants, and own firearms. None of them killed anyone yesterday.
No, they claim that being depressed at the thought of holding a dead child, at failing in the attempt to save his life, at having to console his mourning caregiver is an abnormal reaction that makes you a potential homicidal killer who needs to be stripped of his rights.
Those same people argue that it is completely sane for a parent to hire a doctor to surgically remove a child’s penis, because that child says he wants to be a girl today, even though that same child believed that he was a robot yesterday and a T-rex last week.
They argue that you can hire a lawyer, go to a hearing, and fight to try to get your rights back. The easier answer?
Suffer in silence.
Isn’t that what they claim is wrong with forcing trannies and fags to stay in the closet?
There is a lot of talk nowadays about the so-called “boyfriend loophole” as they relate to red flag orders. I was a victim of a woman who tried to hang me with a domestic violence accusation. This happened back in 2014. In her complaint, she alleged:
She got my first name and my address correct, but had used the wrong last name*. The court granted her a temporary Domestic Violence Restraining Order.
Her legal complaint never alleged any violent act or even threat on my part. I was going to ignore the whole thing, since it wasn’t my name on the order, but my lawyer advised that we fight it to avoid issues down the road. So it still wound up costing me over $2,000 in legal fees. You can read about the entire story here and the resolution here.
Even though we could prove in court that she lied (I never lived with her, even though she said I did) there were absolutely no ramifications to her lies. Had there been a law allowing her to get a DVRO from a person she was only dating, I am convinced that I would be a prohibited person to this day.
There is no limit to the lengths that a woman who feels slighted will go to in order to get revenge on her ex. If it means lawfare, so be it. They will do it without hesitation.
* The last name thing is pretty funny. When I was on Facebook, I used a false last name, because I didn’t want people from my work to be able to read the politically incorrect things I was saying. She filed for the DVTPO using my fake Facebook name. (Shows how well she really knew me.) Anyway, she got the address and my first name correct, so a Deputy pulls up to my house and says, “Are you Dive Medic?” I reply, “Yes.” He hands me the TRO and tells me that I am under a restraining order and drives away.
We all know that the Democrats want a 1,000% tax on assault weapons. This law is very broad and will tax most guns out of existence (pdf warning):
semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to use a magazine that isn’t a fixed magazine, and any one of the following:
Or a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
any semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to use a magazine that isn’t a fixed magazine, and any one of the following:
The tax will also apply to any ammunition magazine, belt, drum, etc. that holds more than 10 rounds of ammo, but specifically excludes fixed tubular .22LR magazines.
Plus a bunch of other stuff. Then it goes on to charge the tax on any of the frames, parts of the firearms covered, and parts of magazines. This is, in effect, a ban most firearms and their parts by taxing them into oblivion. Essentially the same thing that happened with the NFA. The only firearms that seem exempt are bolt, lever action, and rimfire.
Imagine a basic AR-15 that costs $11,000 and using $110 magazines.
Since it is a tax, the Senate doesn’t even have to vote on it. It can be passed through budget reconciliation.
A couple called 911 because they heard the neighbors yelling, “Shoot, shoot, I dare you.” The police responded and asked the residents of the apartment where the guns were.
There were no guns. It was a guy and his friends watching the Tampa Bay Lightning play the Colorado Avalanche in the NHL’s Stanley Cup Finals, and they were screaming “shoot” at the players on TV.
“Call of Duty has more gun control than the US” is the headline. I think it shows how real gun control, such as red flag laws, work:
How many lies can the press put into one editorial? I couldn’t even finish it. I quit when I got to the part about “the Nazis in Charlottesville in 2017 marching with machine guns.” If you have to lie to make your point, your point is not valid.
Here is the online discussion I am in:
Rando Karen: Get rid of all the automatic weapons there is no need for them. You certainly don’t need them to hunt & you’re not taking away the 2nd amendment right. If the house & the senate don’t pass this kind of a bill then maybe they don’t need their jobs. Let’s vote in those that will pass a bill that makes sense to the American people & get rid of those that want to lobby with the NRA & spend our hard earned tax dollars.
Divemedic: Name one automatic weapon being manufactured and sold to anyone but police and military.
Antigun Rando: Splitting hairs for deflection, delusIon, and avoidance. Good job!
DM: How is that splitting hairs? The OP said outlaw automatic weapons. No one is selling any.
AR: Semi automatic is still automatic. It also doesn’t say “fully automatic” which is what you’re erroneously running away with.
DM: Wrong. Automatic means that the firearm fires more than one shot with each function of the trigger. Semi-automatic means one shot is fired with each function of the trigger. Important difference. There is no “fully automatic” in the law or in mechanics. That is a term invented by people who don’t know what they are talking about.