this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
307 points (95.5% liked)

News

22839 readers
4382 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.

[–] transigence@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

No, it really isn't.

[–] Rodsterlings_cig@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then

[–] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.

[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

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.