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.
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.
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.
Define what is a hate crime that everybody would recognize and agree.
Why don’t you tell me what you wish you could do and I’ll find out if it’s legal and send you what I found.