Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:26 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

   in reply to

   • Matty
   • casey is remote
   • midway
   • The Notorious D.O.G ☦️?️
   Boom stick go boom.
   • Embed this notice
     Matty (matty@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:27 JST Matty

     in reply to

     • casey is remote
     • midway
     Okay can you say that again but in retard speak
   • Embed this notice
     The Notorious D.O.G ☦️?️ (notoriousdog@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:27 JST The Notorious D.O.G ☦️?️

     in reply to

     • Matty
     • casey is remote
     • midway
     But… but, he’s a retard??♂️
   • Embed this notice
     Matty (matty@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:28 JST Matty

     in reply to

     • casey is remote
     • midway
     All gun "laws" are infringements. They infringe, have infringed and will infringe every single day until whatever.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:28 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Matty
     • casey is remote
     • midway
     I think there may be a difference between federal and state regulation.
     
     First, it is generally believed that the first 8 amendments only apply against the fed (though I note that the second doesn't say that on its face).
     
     Thus, under current doctrine, the 2nd amendment only applies to the state via the 14th amendment through the incorporation doctrine, which itself is a tenuous doctrine. It's made of some cloth. None the less, in applying the 14th, courts often balance state interests against personal interests, and usually, the strict scrutiny test is applied in the case of the application of the first 8 amendments. Thus, if the state has a compelling interest, it can regulate matters falling under the first 8 amendments, but such regulation must be narrowly tailored to stop the harm they want to avoid while not over burdening individuals.
     
     The problem is that courts have got lazy, and have began applying balancing tests where the federal government is involved. This was never intended under the incorporation doctrine.
     
     Nonetheless, if the 14th were applied on its face, states could probably outlaw guns as long as it outlawed them as to all people, no exceptions, e.g. no permits, licenses, etc. (Equal protection of the law).
   • Embed this notice
     midway (midway@soapbox.midwaytrades.com)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:29 JST midway

     in reply to

     • casey is remote
     “Gun laws” is a broad category. Some most likely pass constitutional muster while some do not.
     
     The difference? Well, in reality, it’s up to interpretation. But even if you take the 2A very literally there are cases where people can lose rights (e.g, felons, insane, children). And there are times when rights collide (e.g. property rights). Then there’s regulation: at what point does regulation become infringement? That an open question.
     
     I say this as a very strong 2A supporter.
   • Embed this notice
     casey is remote (realcaseyrollins@social.freetalklive.com)'s status on Thursday, 12-Jan-2023 10:37:30 JST casey is remote

     Why are gun laws deemed constitutional?