tonyballzee wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:35 am Gun enthusiasts' argument #1: "It's in the constitution!”

Often as a contrast to driving/air travel/other regulated activity. “We have seatbelt laws and speed limits” “yeah but driving isn’t in the constitution”

The implication is that if not for the constitution, they would be ok with regulations. I know that is almost certainly not the case, but I wish somebody would ask the question.

Reckon if freedom of movement was in the Constipation then seat belt laws and speed limits would be ruled illegal. I can drive whatever speed I like outside a school! Freedom of movement!

Anthony Flack wrote: Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:19 pm Reckon if freedom of movement was in the Constipation then seat belt laws and speed limits would be ruled illegal. I can drive whatever speed I like outside a school! Freedom of movement!

Freedom of movement is in the constitution, it's been read into the "privileges and immunities" clause.

Clients of mine will sometimes latch onto that and expect me to argue in court that this means driver licensing requirements are unconstitutional. It is an argument that has always failed, and mercilessly mocked, because not having a car doesn't mean you aren't allowed to move interstate--there's nothing stopping anyone without a license from walking/bussing/flying/taking the train to whatever state they wish. Any serious consideration of cars being included in the freedom of movement would just end up being defeated under 'general welfare' concerns because cars are complicated, heavy, pieces of machinery that can wreak horrific damage upon people if not properly regulated.

As far as guns go, I am extremely ambivalent: I do not like them, but understand the arguments for being able to purchase them. I would rather not own a gun, but do not want to rely on the police for protection (because they won't protect people generally, and have pointedly--perhaps deliberately--failed to protect me specifically); I still don't own a gun, but I do have a license to carry a concealed pistol if I ever decide to purchase one.

cars are complicated, heavy, pieces of machinery that can wreak horrific damage upon people if not properly regulated.

Yeah, that's the difference I guess.

Maybe that clause just isn't written confusingly enough. I mean it's a proper sentence and everything. The "no paups" exception is fun though.

I think the true patron saints of mass shooters are Cheryl Sandberg, Mark Zuckerberg, and the two rapture nuts that run 4chan, 8chan, etc.

US Supreme Court reverses New York law limit gun rights

These people know how to read a room.

What's next for Trump's wacky Supreme Court? I'm thinking maybe they rule that environmental pollution is protected free speech.

Remember folks, the balance of the Supreme Court will never change unless some of these guys die unexpectedly. That's the rules.

Needs to be abolished along with the senate. Didn’t we have a CNC: US Supreme Court on the old forum?

Anthony Flack wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:29 pm What's next for Trump's wacky Supreme Court? I'm thinking maybe they rule that environmental pollution is protected free speech.

You have a good point. If money is speech, why not any other inanimate object that has a perceived value.

Their long-term plan that may come to fruition very soon is going after the executive's power to regulate, starting from the EPA, so, yes, you are not far off.