Deterrence

For those who don't know who Beccaria is, he is basically the father of Criminological sciences, and came up with many theories that are still proven valid today. Yes, he got some things wrong, but a lot of things he got right. He also didn't believe in Capital punishment, something that I personally disagree on, but he still believed that people should be armed and able to carry arms, and that the use of those arms was valid for self defense.

@@GGIC. Yes deterrence. deterrence from defending yourself.

The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns. Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but no ammunition.

@@DaRyteJuan that’s ridiculous. If you lack context, that’s your fault. Here’s some reading for you… “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787 "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778 “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783 “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789 "For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787 "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Any idea what the timestamp is on that quote? I don't have 2 hrs to listen to the whole thing

@@MO-qd6tm Definitely listen to the whole thing when you have the time

Such a mic drop. Followed by the solicitor general stuttering through her nonsense response.

dudes a san francisco liberal. The guy at one point tried to squeeze in there that the ruling wont affect NYC lol. He doesnt understand that this is a state law, or he does he is just trying to mislead and hopefully get the majority to cut out NYC. Underwood saw what breyer said and also tried to quickly inject "no, nyc is not in this case" lol . idiots

@Jason from NYC ... Spoken like a true "Don't know history" valedictorian.

Breyer sound like he has no ability to reason.

That is a false assertion. The only right any organism has in nature is the right to die. What can be inferred from your statement would only increase the risk of terror becoming a normalized part of society. I imagine a day will come when the United States resembles the wartorn desert ruins of the Old world. Mass society has numerous problems that won't be resolved your way.

@@wj3186 😳 You have my permission to not procreate.

@@wj3186 you have a false argument.

And a gun will do that? c'mon and what if you are with a bunch of people and use the gun on the wrong person!

The real question is what you're going to do when trumpet sound from the angles at the coming of Christ at the end of the age?

Facts it really isn’t that complicated

You’re not very smart, are you? Please tell me where you can go and get firearms without paying for them.

@@DaRyteJuan You can't be that stupid. He's not talking about the actual cost of the purchasing of a firearm. I have a right to buy food, the government cannot stop me from doing that, but I don't have a right to have the farmer's food free of charge. The same people who say all these governmental fees to purchase and carry a gun would be picketing the Congress if there was a poll tax law working its way through Congress.

@@DaRyteJuan you know we are laughing.

@@DaRyteJuan Yeah we're laughing at you 😆

The actual full completed draft states “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements” You’re quoting the very first draft, Very rough draft. The draft quoting was gotten ride of by Thomas Jefferson for a reason. Meaning that if the Supreme Court states you can’t bring guns into private property or in stores and what no it’s perfectly with the bounds of constitutional law and moral law. The actual Virginia constitution states "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Hey!!!! Who are you calling Free men ?? This is America 🇺🇸 Freedom has been removed from the people for a long time!!! Now shut up and get your jab !!!

@@jackgriffith9229 😥

@@jacobsaquato4168 "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

@@jacobsaquato4168 The second amendment is crystal clear and a lot more concise than your comment saying the same thing.

The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns. Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but not ammunition.

@@DaRyteJuan can't have a militia without equal weapons and ammo

@@MikeOxhard69420 The military has attack helicopters, rockets, .50 caliber chain guns and daisy-cutters. Good luck with your pea-shooters.

@@MikeOxhard69420 How many M1A1 Abrams tanks do you have? 😹😹😹😹

@@DaRyteJuan and we should have the same

My copy of the Constitution has a bill of rights and not a bill of suggestions or for that matter a bill of privileges

That type of law is what the 2nd amendment was written to prevent. Actually, the 2nd amendment guts the NY law, the tyrants in NY forgot who the real bosses are.

Has been the law for over a century. The reaction, especially white suburban women, should be spectacular.

@@louspingleburken3143 You think so? I see white suburban women afraid. 20K permit issued to 20 something young black men? A few shootings which is inevitable. Then. People whose parents never owned a gun even get to feel scared, then angry.

@@jackgriffith9229 funny , mine too

New York State needs Constitutional Carry. It's so dangerous in this state anymore and criminals have no fear.

Does not one hike in the woods? The whole idea of having to get a permit to exercise a right is an incredibly stupid situation.

@@Anon54387, While you're correct, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that states with handgun permit structures do not violate the Second Amendment rights of the people since it demonstrates that background checks have been completed.

@@robertortiz8540 but they do and what do background checks have to do with anything?

@@daveonezero6258, In the eyes of the courts, if someone wants to buy a gun, they must pass a background check before the gun store can sell it to them, and if they want to apply for a concealed carry permit 6 months later, they must again pass a background check to ensure they haven't been arrested during that period within 6 months. It doesn't matter what you or I think because judges are all lawyers, and they all interpret the law and the Constitution differently, and that's what makes us all different people.

Just wait. Those states will try to retaliate somehow.

Constitutional Carry will solve that issue.

Move out of New York

Say it for the people in the back

What's your thoughts on requiring more specific safety measures such as classes and background checks in exchange for more carry permits issued?

@@MO-qd6tm I’m from Florida, we’re required to take a course and meet state guidelines before we’re allowed to carry, once we do that’s it’s natural most people want to find a fun club and train

The true problem is congress already know the problems we have it’s the mental stability of the American republic cannot be gauged. At one point USA use to foot the bill for people who suffered with mental issues but they soon Realize they couldn’t afford it and scrapped it

Free Speech kills more people. BLM speech killed 28 people in the summer "Post Floyd". Maybe we need SPEECH CONTROL.

I am glad I don't live there. Lol. If they repeal Sullian Laws only snake Pliskin will feel safe. The real looser will be suburban women.

@@williamfranz9872 That's why I call our Governor Queen Kathy because she behaves like a queen

@Damian the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect so this nonsense about having police in these highly populated areas to call on in your time of need as she stated is a bunch of hog wash !!

Just use ad block if you don't like ads.

Who cares. The media probably provides the audio equipment. The point is, we’re getting the audio for free

Go Brandon!

It is a delusional statement from a bygone era. If munitions distribution are not properly regulated and gun violence not properly penalized, the nation will degenerate into a condition resembling the wartorn desert civilizations of the Old World.

@@wj3186 The US has had more and more gun restrictions imposed over the past century and for some reason, it seems more degenerate now than prior to 1986 when fully automatic weapons were legal to purchase.

@@wj3186 you have to understand the definition of infringement, to limit or change, then look at whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 2nd will never be out dated, just like none of the other bill of rights will never be out dated. Because we are born with the right to defend ourselves from any threat, even if the threat is the government.

@@wj3186your statement Is delusional.

No doubt.

The term felony was created to attack the Second Amendment as well. It steals a right from a person that completed their debt to society.

A simple note: where in the Second Amendment does it say, “unless that person is a felon”? We used to only classify heinous acts that harmed people as felonies. Now it's ridiculously easy to inadvertently commit a felony. I argue that a disqualifying felony must also contain a violent and intentional act that harms others.

Y'all do realize most of the people involved in mass shootings didn't have criminal records and got their guns legally. It isn't gangs and felons shooting up schools and other places. It's law abiding citizens.

Murdock v Pennsylvania reinforces this.

Thugs have bad aim and take out innocent people

Facts Lauren

Basic Animal instinct including Human “ animals”, go after the closest weakest prey….guns nullify weak … Guns are the great “ equality creator” Grandmas , house wives, weak males in suits and even an occasional socialist have an equal playing field to defend themselves knowing how to use a gun ..

Beginning at about 1:04:00 it goes from bad to a level of terrible that is as incomprehensible as it is palpable.

Good let the NY law get shot down 🤷🏻‍♀️

Her argument literally is, "Most of us here think guns are scary so please don't stop us from trampling the Constitution SCOTUS!"

Lots of “Uhm..”

The Constitution clearly states "a well regulated militia". It states nothing about self defense. Those words aren't in the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about carrying guns in public, or conceal carry.

@@Bigmommafluffy Did you listen to the Judge @1:04.00 ? This was settled in Heller v. DC. What is being discussed: If I have a right to self defense, and I do, what good is that right if it does not accompany me wherever I go?

@@Bigmommafluffy You are bias. Right to marry is not in the constitution. "Common Law" supersedes the Constitution. The Constitution is just a reminder to the federal corporation aka "United States" not to touch our COMMON LAW RIGHTS. 2nd amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don't want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below: In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” web.archive.org/web/20170219023728/reloadone.com/us-firearm-permit-and-licensing-laws-are-facially-unconstitutional/

@Na'keem Syko Sorry, mate. “BEAR” doesn’t necessarily mean “CARRY.” It could just mean “BE RESPONSIBLE FOR” as in “BEAR the COST.” And even IF the Supreme Court says it means “CARRY,” there’s nothing in the constitution that says the individual has a right to “USE” then. lol

@Na'keem Syko The right to bear arms is not "self defense" or "concealed carry". I'm kinda floored that you're not seeing the different words.

@Damian yes, this is a case about MAY ISSUE. If they rule it unconstitutional, then EVERY state automatically will have SHALL ISSUE at best. For example this case wont effect texas because they have no permits for any gun so they wont have shall issue, but the other states that have MAY ISSUE will automatically go to SHALL ISSUE

Laws are that only as long as they're obeyed. Compliance is optional not guaranteed. If it's unconstitutional then is it a law at all? Just thought seeding

@@tankscrittersandurbanhomes5579 I agree, I believe it is my God given right to see how fit to protect myself and or my family, as long as I do not impede on others life, rights or freedom though the important thing is not getting caught on exercising my right!! 😂 What a sad means of exercising my rights!

@@Bruceless keeping it real love that. God bless

@@tankscrittersandurbanhomes5579 A law is a law and compliance is required. It has to be struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds first by someone filing a case.

Correct

If i was to carry in any city in the US it would be NYC

If the subway has as much crime as i have red about. I would not think it s a good example of a place that should be gun free..

Kaepernick exercised his first amendment Right in a football stadium where do you exercise your second amendment right

That is just plain stupid! How many mugging take place on the subway? There's your answer..

@@extraextra4380 For all he went through to get appointed, I thought he had a back bone. Guess not!

Rights cover all American Lands especially for women and school children. Regarding permits of Catholics to attend Mass… now we have agents trying to push vax passports for admittance. Freedom Rights are being infringed upon our CITIZENS from multiple directions… in all cases from the GOVERNMENT BODIES. GOD help us!

Kagan certainly isn't.

@@jamesgroce3125 , absolutely. Uhs and ahs tell me she might be used to speaking before thinking.

Meant Kagan.

That doesn't make any sense, right?

Yes, he did. He did well toward the beginning and decimated their poor arguments and outright dishonesty is his rebuttal.

Oops. I meant IN his rebuttal.

He did better in the last half. He was way too wishy washy in the "sensitive places" portion though. For example, there is no constitutional basis for the state to say you can't carry on a college campus.

@@musicman1eanda college campuses comes from DC v Heller, when the opinion states that you can regulate the carrying of arms in “sensitive places,” such as schools and courthouses

@@DireAvenger001 sooo he didn't concede anything?

Well regulated malitia

If you are a court follower, you know their voices. No criticism to you, just saying court watching is a huge thing. Most of us court followers know their voices and what their opinions will be. It’s fascinating. The more you listen the easier it shall be.

Hiya Nate. You can download both the audio file of this at the Supreme Court web site and the transcript in PDF format. I read along on the transcript as I listened since the transcript says the name of the speaker throughout.

The plaintiffs’ argument could be utterly destroyed with much simpler language than any attorney has uttered heretofore. The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not spelled out. It doesn’t say “firearms,” per se. A spear and a sword are both arms. So are pepper spray and bean-bag guns. Also, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” Constitutionally, you might be able to have all the guns you want, but no Constitutional right to ammunition.

@@DaRyteJuan Having heard the arguments for the Heller matter, the terms arms, guns, firearms and to include amunition were well defined, established and deemed to be interchangeable.

Hand grenades, bombs and howizters are “Arms” too. But next no one is arguing that the common man should have those. So you have to ask yourself ‘why?’ The reason is the gun manufacturers want to sell guns. Just like the tobacco industry wants to sell cigarettes.

@@DaRyteJuan Again, the Heller case and actually, many other cases that have come before lower courts and SCOTUS have made the distinction between small arms and weapons that are reserved for exclusive use of the armed forces. It's settled law.

Very well said

Bingo. Remember we fought a revolution because our other rights were being violated by a government far, far away.

That’s about right. Two tiered justice system.

No. Those are privileges, not rights. Rights are fundamental in nature. They are so fundamental that they cannot be dependent/contingent upon trivial things such as prosperity.

National guard is not,has never been, and cannot be the militia, the national guard is a branch of the united states military they are reserves.

A statement made by Thomas Jefferson in a letter is not binding law.

@@markpkessinger Nobody said it was Francis.

@@bcarss1970 -- Right, so that renders the comment irrelevant to the discussion.

@@markpkessinger yes it is … 2nd Amendment…..Ny law is going down in flames…finally

@Na'keem Syko -- What is relevant to matters of law is not a matter of anyone';s ego.

"Well regulated malitia" comes first.

@@shawncrawford3146 And has nothing to do with gun control, "A well regulated (i.e. equipped, trained, and free to assist when needed) militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period, there is no argument. They meant THE people. Not police, not military, not national guard, PEOPLE.

@@jackwhite1742 So you believe the founders meant for everyone and anyone to have unfettered access to lethal force? That's an extreme position and a very modern interpretation of an amendment that was never interpreted that way before Heller. The 2nd amendment can be regulated without infringing on anything. When the more foundational rights of life and liberty are threatened, there's plenty of room for regulation. The PEOPLE want some protection from the gun cult. We all have the same rights. Over 80% of the people are tired of seeing children killed in school. What doesn't bend, will always break. The 2nd amendment is not zero sum. Every right we have has limits.

@@shawncrawford3146 Yes. That is exactly what the founders meant, and it has always been interrpreted that way, and in fact, was applied like that in every case including when the NFA was passed. Feel free to go ahead and read all the court cases, but also, I would suggest by starting reading a history book, then the personal writimgs of the founders, including the federalist papers. Also, no, 80% of the people want their gun rights left alone. Because gun control doesnt, and never has, worked. Not in any country in history. 2A is absolute and zero sum with no limits, because evil men have no limits. But nice try msking an emotional appeal with an apples to oranges argument. Gun control has nothing to do with mass shootings, or saving children. Bet your pro-choice too. Hypocrite.

@@jackwhite1742 You're just wrong. The framers of the Constitution knew what a malitia was and they wrote the document with the intention of arming the states. Your position is radical. Is there any regulation or red flag laws you'd support?

@Damian This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don't want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below: In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” web.archive.org/web/20170219023728/reloadone.com/us-firearm-permit-and-licensing-laws-are-facially-unconstitutional/

breyer: san francisco kagan: nyc sotomayor: nyc enough said

Who cc in the woods? It's open carry! These knuckleheads never been to the woods.

That was a mistake in an otherwise brilliant argument. His rebuttal was brilliant.

Don't you have to provide tax information as well?

I love Caetano v Massachusetts and don't understand why it isn't the be all end all for striking down assault weapon bans and the like. Everyone talks about Heller, but Caetano is every bit as much of a landmark decision.

@@mikeb.2925 This is from my firearm argument at the Supreme Court in the case titled Marc Stephens vs Edward Jerejian. They don't want the public to know about my argument which was deleted from the internet, see link below. The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen is "BS" because the Supreme Court already ruled we can carry in public..see below: In a line of decisions, however, the Supreme Court has recognized that a right to keep and bear arms in public does exist under the Constitution. Quoting Heller, “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” web.archive.org/web/20170219023728/reloadone.com/us-firearm-permit-and-licensing-laws-are-facially-unconstitutional/

Why?

@@shaunfosmark9850 are you listening to the ridiculous hypotheticals? “What if someone at a sports event has a gun...?” News flash your honor, people everywhere have guns. Some legal CCW, most illegal… it’s not a problem. I have a CCW, my neighbor has a CCW, we’ve never shot anyone. These hypotheticals are handled by existing law. It’s already illegal to brandish, assault, or harm someone. What they should be discussing is why they think a little old lady can’t be “allowed” by politicians to protect herself the same as off-duty police officers, or judges, or rich people who can afford an armed bodyguard.

@@Rectitude4U those are the left wing activist judges. This is exactly why President Trump's 3 appointments were absolutely critical to preserving the civil liberties of the individual, here in the United States. Without those 3 appointments, and taking Garland's blatant violations of the United States Constitution and the restrictions it places on government, into consideration? We would be under martial law, right now by illegitimate CCP intelligence agency asset Biden and his illegitimate regime, with the democrat ghestapo, aka the federal Department of Justice and clandestine agencies, going door to door, disarming people

No they're not. They are political appointees.

@@Rectitude4U hypotheticals are extremely important in law and philosophy. Those examples are made by the left leaning justices, one of which thought Heller was incorrectly decided. The question is what other hypotheticals justices think up, which I believe they could address examples like the NJ case where they denied a girl being stalked who was killed later on

If we don't have the right to carry a gun outside the home. Given Heller and the right to self-defense, you must conclude we have the right to have our own police officer. Just like SCOTUS, POTUS and others have.

@@EthosAtheos Sad truth is a lady who was robbed, raped and beaten tried to sue the local police since the cops were out gunned and took off running leaving the woman to her fiat. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the cops saying "Citizens ultimately have the duty of protecting themselves". That's right! Cops have NO legal obligation to risk their life to protect yours.

Well stated, when they only allow the permitting of 1% of NYC that doesn't seem like the people's rights are being upheld. Sounds like discrimination based on class.

@@IronskullGM Even retired NYC cops can’t carry firearms in NYC. You’re required to carry for 20 years but one you punch out that last time, you’re no longer allowed to carry.

@@deebee4575 that's just wrong. I have a friend who was retired special forces and a retired federal firearms instructor for the DOJ and couldn't get licensed in NYC. It's definately a privlege there between who you know and how wealthy you are.

It's ridiculous that the Bill of Rights was only applicable to the federal government. What good is recognition of a right if a state government can infringe it?

@@Anon54387 That’s false. That’s why this case is happening.

No. Your grammar school obviously didn't teach you grammar.

@@Anon54387 they ain't taughts me nothin booBoo Kitty

Clement specifically brought that up that SCOTUS can not let NY deem places Sensitive that are just normal public areas. Hopefully they add that to their opinion or there will be more lawsuits coming with regards to that