2nd Circuit Court is alive and well

[Acer-m14]

you really do not like the Constitution and the BOR

 

[Acer-m14]

SECTION 4
Right to keep and bear arms
Civil Rights (CVR) CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2
§ 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

 

[ronstar]

Real due process doesn't mean appeal.

It means no deprivation of rights without fair trial, ability to cross examine witnesses and present evidence, and a jury of your peers to determine the facts.

Anything less is ripe for abuse.

Look at the old Soviet union. They had doctors on standby to rubber stamp a declaration of "mentally defective" for anyone who expressed doubt in the official narrative, for anything.

I dont think you're correct. In my understanding, Due Process means the ability to legally challenge any suspension of rights or privalages, including incarceration.

 

[Saltwater60]

So you want a confirmed schizophrenic to have a gun?
It doesn’t have to interfere with your rights or anyone else’s if done right. Again, if the licensing officer has to PROVE someone is unfit ( the burden is on them) in court before impartial judge and provide for the person’s defense before a denial is issued, then it’s proper— and it’s due process. A paranoid schizophrenic shouldn’t have a gun.

Most denials are completely arbitrary and never go before any court, trial, hearing or anything like that. One guy decides and stamps it or denies it. Then you can appeal it and have your day in court. I’ve heard of people in my county being denied for too many tickets.

 

[ronstar]

We cannot allow dangerous mentally ill people to possess guns, BUT they should have the right to appeal any such prohibitions. And they do. Two Conservative Supreme Courts have agreed. In 2010 & in 2022.

 

[Truebeliever]

Most details are completely arbitrary and never go before any court, trial, hearing or anything like that. One guy decides and stamps it or denies it. Then you can appeal it and have your day in court. I’ve heard of people in my county being denied for too many tickets.

That’s not due process where the burden is on the state . It should be the other way around, the state has to take it to court to deny it.

 

[Truebeliever]

We cannot allow dangerous mentally ill people to possess guns, BUT they should have the right to appeal any such prohibitions. And they do. Two Conservative Supreme Courts have agreed. In 2010 & in 2022.

Agreed. They should .

 

[Saltwater60]

We cannot allow dangerous mentally ill people to possess guns, BUT they should have the right to appeal any such prohibitions. And they do. Two Conservative Supreme Courts have agreed. In 2010 & in 2022.

No one is disagreeing that dangerous mentally I’ll people should be able to get guns. Just like a liberal to take just part of it and say look how radical those conservatives are. All people are saying is one person shouldn’t be able to rubber stamp and call you mentally I’ll and strip your rights away without some sort of due process legal proceedings.
Look how criminals or felons get their rights taken away a court of law so why the disparity in your mind?

 

[ronstar]

No one is disagreeing that dangerous mentally I’ll people should be able to get guns. Just like a liberal to take just part of it and say look how radical those conservatives are. All people are saying is one person shouldn’t be able to rubber stamp and call you mentally I’ll and strip your rights away without some sort of due process legal proceedings.
Look how criminals or felons get their rights taken away a court of law so why the disparity in your mind?

I agree, there should always be Due Process when any rights are taken away.

 

[dwa12479]

Current Supreme Court upheld the authority & discretion of States to require a permit in order to own a gun.

Which case are you referring to?

 

[ronstar]

Which case are you referring to?

Bruen, which cited the majority opinion in Heller affirming the legality of gun permits.

 

[nortatoga]

Bruen, which cited the majority opinion in Heller affirming the legality of gun permits.

I think you should be more specific and say CCW (hand guns)

 

[ronstar]

R

I think you should be more specific and say CCW (hand guns)

Ruling does not specify permits JUST for handguns.

 

[nortatoga]

R

Ruling does not specify permits JUST for handguns.

So the case also included conceald carry of rifles?

 

[Edwardteach72]

I think you should be more specific and say CCW (hand guns)

Lot of people here believe that Bruen says any and all license for any and all guns

 

[ronstar]

So the case also included conceald carry of rifles?

Heller was about the right to keep guns at home for self defense.

Decision in Bruen cited accepting permits in Heller.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Heller was about the right to keep guns at home for self defense.

Do you wanna bet?

 

[nortatoga]

Heller was about the right to keep guns at home for self defense.

Decision in Bruen cited accepting permits in Heller.

In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

*  *  *​

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

 

[ronstar]

In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

*  *  *​

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

[nortatoga]

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Very good you showed felons can't possess firearms!

But this is your quote " Bruen, which cited the majority opinion in Heller affirming the legality of gun permits."

My post above was the ruling..

 

[spat]

I dont think you're correct. In my understanding, Due Process means the ability to legally challenge any suspension of rights or privalages, including incarceration.

It also includes the presumption of innocence.

So not only can you challenge the suspension of rights, but the burden of proof must be on the government to prove you have violated the law.

 

[spat]

Very good you showed felons can't possess firearms!

But this is your quote " Bruen, which cited the majority opinion in Heller affirming the legality of gun permits."

My post above was the ruling..

Not so much that "felons can't possess firearms" but more like "among the rights that can be stripped upon a felony conviction is the RKBA".

If the law allows you to confine someone to an 8x10 cell for years, then it allows you to strip some of their other rights as well.

But *only* after conviction as part of a sentence delivered with full due process.

 

[spat]

So you want a confirmed schizophrenic to have a gun?
It doesn’t have to interfere with your rights or anyone else’s if done right. Again, if the licensing officer has to PROVE someone is unfit ( the burden is on them) in court before impartial judge and provide for the person’s defense before a denial is issued, then it’s proper— and it’s due process. A paranoid schizophrenic shouldn’t have a gun.

So, you think it's OK to leave a potentially homicidal paranoid schizophrenic running around as long as you take whatever guns he happens to have ?

No, if he's dangerous enough that you need to take his guns, then you need to lock him up.

 

[Truebeliever]

So, you think it's OK to leave a potentially homicidal paranoid schizophrenic running around as long as you take whatever guns he happens to have ?

No, if he's dangerous enough that you need to take his guns, then you need to lock him up.

You can’t . It’s a SCOTUS decision that he must be an immediate danger to himself or others. Once they give him a shot of whatever medicine that normalizes him, he has to be cut loose into the community even though everyone knows he isn’t going to take his medication.
It’s one of the reasons for a dramatic increase in the suicide rate and homicide rate after the decision.

 

[spat]

You can’t . It’s a SCOTUS decision that he must be an immediate danger to himself or others. Once they give him a shot of whatever medicine that normalizes him, he has to be cut loose into the community even though everyone knows he isn’t going to take his medication.

So, if it's a violation of his rights to lock him up, then it's a violation to take his guns.

It really is that simple.

 

[Truebeliever]

So, if it's a violation of his rights to lock him up, then it's a violation to take his guns.

It really is that simple.

They can still take away his ability to care for his own affairs without committing them. Look at Britney Spears for example .

 

[Edwardteach72]

They can still take away his ability to care for his own affairs without committing them. Look at Britney Spears for example .

AH yes look at Britney Spears who was a victim of her horrific father, the man who essentially kidnapped his own daughter and stole how much money from her??

 

[Truebeliever]

AH yes look at Britney Spears who was a victim of her horrific father, the man who essentially kidnapped his own daughter and stole how much money from her??

It was an example. And Britney was crazy before they took that action. Shaving her head, and other crazy things that I can’t cite from memory.
She could have taken all sorts of actions to rebel. She was a grown woman. She was crazy. She was so crazy that she lost custody to her ex-husband K-Fed. K-Fed? If you know anything about custody battles, you know how unfit a woman must be proven to be for a man to get physical and full custody.
It doesn’t mean she couldn’t get her self back together. And in a gun permit situation, the state would have to show she is still crazy to deny her.

 

[Edwardteach72]

It was an example. And Britney was crazy before they took that action. Shaving her head, and other crazy things that I can’t cite from memory.
She could have taken all sorts of actions to rebel. She was a grown woman. She was crazy. She was so crazy that she lost custody to her ex-husband K-Fed. K-Fed? If you know anything about custody battles, you know how unfit a woman must be proven to be for a man to get physical and full custody.
It doesn’t mean she couldn’t get her self back together. And in a gun permit situation, the state would have to show she is still crazy to deny her.

I mean she did but her father controlled all of her finances and actions, even when she was fine she couldn't do anything because her father got to make all the decisions.

Obviously you don't know shit about the situation.. suprise suprise.

 

[Truebeliever]

I mean she did but her father controlled all of her finances and actions, even when she was fine she couldn't do anything because her father got to make all the decisions.

Obviously you don't know shit about the situation.. suprise suprise.

Agreed that her father took over. As her bring “ fine”… that’s debatable, but being able to manage her affairs again, yes.
It would be the same with a gun permit . Someone is denied a gun permit because they are crazy , they can apply and get it back . The same way cops who go a little crazy, get their guns taken then returned when they are in a better place.
And as usual, I know more about the legalities of it than you do. Did she get control of her money again? Yes , but her crazy stunts didn’t help. Her lawyer did.
And as I said before, I know cops that had their guns removed for psychological reasons and were later returned to them .