Supreme Court gives National Rifle Assn a WIN.
This new ruling by the US. Supreme Court goes back to the first amendment, and the government, namely the State of New York, using gestapo like tactics to punish a private organization for having views and a political position the government doesn't like. (Not for illegal activities, but for a political stance that the then Democrat Gov. Cuomo and other democrats were opposed to.)
And how the former Governor and the state of New York punish the NRA for nasty 2nd amendment favoring views? They sent official formal guidance to All the banks and insurance companies in the state of New York urging them not to do or accept business from the NRA. The NRA who committed no crime and broke no rule. They simply believed in and supported the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms.
Well, the NRA sued and as of yesterday, they won. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in the NRA's favor.
Today is a good day in the fight against a Tyrannical Government.
source:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-gives-national-rifle-assn-a-1st-amendment-win-in-suit-against-new-york-officials/ar-BB1nkDq9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=953f765603494ba1959c41167d4a8fe3&ei=22
RE: Supreme Court gives National Rifle Assn a WIN.
While I'm not as up in the details as I'd like to be, I might have to agree with you for the second time in one day, Lancelott. This is surely an unexpected turn of events.
I think a government needs to take very careful consideration before it urges discrimination against an organisation that has broken no laws, no matter how evil that organisation might be, and even if it poses a threat to a peaceful society. If there was enough community support, a better approach would be to outlaw the organisation. If I'm missing some key piece of the puzzle here, I hope someone will set me straight.
What they SHOULD have done, of course, is to remove the right of all citizens except for very select groups to own handguns and rapid-fire weapons. This would NOT be a contravention of the 2nd Amendment according to any sane interpretation.
I hope other will join in the discussion, as it would be interesting to hear a range of views.
RE: Supreme Court gives National Rifle Assn a WIN.
You scare me a little with some this.
You think the government should outlaw certain groups? As I've tried to explain. We are a Constitutional Republic. Key part, being Constitution. The government cannot outlaw groups it doesn't like. That would violate the First Amendment: Freedom of Association.
Ban all citizens, except a select few from owning guns and rapid-fire guns?
That would be violation of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of individual citizens having the right to own and carry a gun.
Again, this may work in your country, and I'm not knocking that, but it would not be Constitutional in America.
RE: Supreme Court gives National Rifle Assn a WIN.
The Federal government may not have such powers, however a number of groups, such as certain motor cycle groups and extremist organisations have been effectively banned under state or local jurisdiction, as they have here. IF the will was strong enough, I'm sure something could be done.
I find the attitude of some US citizens towards their Constitution interesting. They treat it almost as a de facto Bible -- its decrees are everlasting and immutable. While it undoubtedly is an extremely important document, does the Constitution exist to serve the people, or the people to serve the Constitution?
The US Constitution has been altered no less than 27 times since it was first created. If (as I said) the will was there, it could be amended to deal with the gun issue. The 2nd Amendment itself, is, of course, an example of a change in the document to meet the perceived needs of the time (233 years ago).
Banning the ownership of rapid-fire weapons and handguns would not violate the 2nd Amendment. Every citizen would still be able to own a rifle or shotgun.
Of course, the 2nd Amendment speaks of the rights of a well regulated militia, which clearly does not refer to every Tom, Dick and Harriet; a fact which seems to have escaped some, including a majority of Supreme Court judges in the Heller case.
Ideally, as in most countries without massive gun fatalities, only those with a demonstrated need for a gun would be allowed to own any type of firearm -- such as police officers and farmers. But I reluctantly admit the US seems a long way off reaching that level of sense.
RE: Supreme Court gives National Rifle Assn a WIN.
"Banning the ownership of rapid-fire weapons and handguns would not violate the 2nd Amendment. Every citizen would still be able to own a rifle or shotgun.
Of course, the 2nd Amendment speaks of the rights of a well regulated militia, which clearly does not refer to every Tom, Dick and Harriet; a fact which seems to have escaped some, including a majority of Supreme Court judges in the Heller case."
There is no argument here. I get that you do not agree, but The Supreme Court has already ruled on the rights of citizens to have handguns, when the struck down Chicago's ban on handgun ownership.
SCOTUS has already ruled that a well regulate militia means individual citizens (from a militia is drawn). So, these are settled, and individual states have their own version of the second amendment.
Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but lets be honest, given how difficult that is, and 2/3rd requirements needed, you'd stand a better chance of being struck by lightening, while banging supermodel, in the White House, during WW-3, while making YouTube video.
