Why is it that states have nearly absolute power when it's something a Republican wants but if it's something a Democrat wants the state is a tyrant?
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
146 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19162 readers
2716 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
California has a long history of trying to keep guns out of black people's hands. Black Panthers, for example. In other words, it's not only about Republican vs. Democrat here. Interesting history.
Shhh, they don't understand nuance, you might hurt their brain with the knowledge that gun control started as a racist thing (and often still is bigoted, look at republicans whining about pride events arming up after that nightclub shooting a few months ago)
Modern gun laws were never designed to be used against white people and some people wonder how we keep hearing how white conservatives shooters get guns legally despite flags like psych holds on their record.
Probably because carrying and owning firearms is a right, turns out it's pretty hard to restrict people's rights.
The same law would get blocked if it banned free speech in public
We all know that rights aren't universal. 1A isn't, 2A isn't, none of them are. In other words, it's easy to restrict people's rights. The question is always how much the courts will allow.
I mean, it isn't. You name the right, I'll name how it's restricted.
To go with your example, these are examples of illegal speech, i.e. restrictions on free speech in public:
- Fraud
- Defamation
- Threats
All of those things are things that cause real, direct harms, with speech as the weapon. (Also, defamation is a tort, not a crime.) On the other hand, lying, for instance, is absolutely legally protected speech, except in fairly limited circumstances. I can quite legally lie on my resume to get a job that I wouldn't otherwise get, and about the worst that can happen is that I can be fired. I can lie about being a Navy Seal and having gotten a Medal of Honor in Afghanistan, and there's pretty much fuck-all anyone can do about it ("stolen valor" laws were deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS).
Mere ownership of a firearm, or even carrying, does not cause a direct harm. Brandishing a firearm--which is usually defined something like 'threatening someone with a firearm'--is the rough equivalent of the things that you list.
All of those things are things that cause real, direct harms, with speech as the weapon.
Neither Federal nor State legislators - nor judges - care whether or not a crime is victimless. See e.g. the War on Drugs.
Also, defamation is a tort, not a crime.
That makes defamatory speech easier to restrict by reducing the plaintiff's burden of proof.
Defamation is also a 3-pronged test, assuming that you aren't talking about a public figure. It needs to be false (truth is an absolute defense against defamation), you need to have either known that it was false, or have had reckless indifference to the truth, and you need to have caused some kind of measurable harm (and hurting your feelings isn't a measurable harm). All of that is played out against a field of lawyers in a civil suit that charge by the hour. Defamation is actually quite challenging to win in the US, unless the person that is alleging defamation has a lot of money to spend on attorneys to buy the defendant.
That's ridiculous and you know it. The second amendment wasn't meant for cosplaying in the first place. You can tell if you actually read it.
Good thing rights are literally just and social construct and aren't limited to what's specifically in the Constitution. Anyway the Supreme Court basically rewrote history in 2008 and 2010 and decided the second amendment was totally intended to protect the individual right to a firearm. I think they're wrong, but I also think that humans have a right to personal weapons, so we'll just pretend they're right. Anyway, you can come up with come creative reinterpretations of the Constitution after the post-civil war amendments decided that the bill of rights applied to state laws. But really, you depend on that reinterpretation to protect you from cops and other forms of state-level tyranny so picking and choosing gets a little iffy.
This is a specifically enshrined Constitutional right. That's literally the purpose of the Bill of Rights and states don't get to ignore them.
Which well regulated militia are you in?
"The people." Also the US Air Force but that's a whole different matter. I literally just addressed this in a different post so I'll just copy and paste.
The "but it says well regulated militia" argument has never been in good faith or intended to be intellectual. It's just a blatant fallacy that gets repeated over and over in echo chambers hoping to sway uneducated bystanders. It has never held water or been supported by any court case/precedent (to include Miller which was literally argued one-sided without opposition). It is absurd at face value that literally the 2nd right in the list of things the framers wanted to protect the citizens from their government is the government giving itself permission to have arms. It is never meant to make sense or be intellectual, it's literally just circle-jerking to pretend that it gives them moral superiority for hating a right that they don't like.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.
Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law.
Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.
Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.
Following Saturday’s ruling his office issued a statement saying, “this dangerous decision puts the lives of Californians on the line.”
The president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, which sued to block the law, countered that “the politicians’ ploy to get around the Second Amendment has been stopped for now.”
The original article contains 222 words, the summary contains 144 words. Saved 35%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good. It was a dumb law. It would stop no one from having or obtaining a gun. It wouldn't stop anyone who would possibly be thinking of doing harm with a gun from still having one in any of those areas. Its not like there's a controlled area at a park where you have to go through a metal detector and get frisked to go in it. At best it would mean anyone who was a "bad guy" with a gun would try extra hard to flee from police or shoot at a cop in order to get away if they were in one of the places where they're banned and about to be stopped and searched for anything else. It's not a law that would curb gun violence.