Our friends at the New York Times are nothing if not consistent. In an article today by Adam Liptak entitled Supreme Court’s Gun Rulings Leave Baffled Judges Asking for Help quotes the usual anti-gun academics like Joseph Blocher, Jake Charles, et al. without bothering to get any input from anyone on the pro-gun side. No wonder they’re having trouble.
The anti-gun judges whose written opinions the Times article quotes are only “baffled” because they’re determined to uphold unconstitutional gun control laws, Supreme Court opinions be damned. When an enumerated civil right declares that it “shall not be infringed,” you shouldn’t be too surprised that it’s difficult to find a ton of history of laws supporting things like overbearing “gun-free” zone laws or bans on the ownership of commonly owned rifles.
Judges don’t sit around wondering why it’s so hard for the government to censor political speech. Bruen is a very simple test. If the government can’t present at least a handful of similar historical laws to back up its case for limits on gun rights, the gun control law in question can’t be upheld.
That’s what these great minds find so “baffling.”
Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit https://crpa.org/.
This post was adapted by SNW from a tweet posted by Konstadinos Moros.
This past summer, my friend Garish was trying to organize an expedition into New York for a day of feasting on knish and the original Coney Island hot dogs. Garish is insane.
None of us wanted to make the trip. Yes, it is impossible to get real knish here in the Lehigh Valley. Yes, hot knish, slathered with spicey brown mustard is about as close to gastronomical heaven as can be achieved on this Earth. No to New York. No.
We reminded Garish that he cannot carry in New York. He did not care. Laws are only suggestions.
Yes, even though Garish is certifiably out of his mind (just look at the way he dresses), he has a small arsenal and is a better shot than most of us.
In the end, we settled for mediocre hot pastrami on Jewish rye at a local restaurant that should be sued into apologizing for representing themselves a Jewish deli.
This time, reconfiguring the words that likely triggered the censors.
This past summer, my friend Garish was trying to organize an expedition into New York for a day of feasting on knish and the original Coney Island hot dogs. Garish is insane.
None of us wanted to make the trip. Yes, it is impossible to get real knish here in the Lehigh Valley. Yes, hot knish, slathered with spicey brown mustard is about as close to gastronomical heaven as can be achieved on this Earth. No to New York. No.
We reminded Garish that he cannot carry in New York. He did not care. Laws are only suggestions.
Yes, even though Garish is certifiably out of his mind (just look at the way he dresses), he has a small arsenal and is a better shot than most of us.
In the end, we settled for mediocre hot pastrami on Jue-ish rye at a local restaurant that should be sued into apologizing for representing themselves a Jue-ish deli.
You want great pastrami? A few years ago, a NYC paper got into the Katz’s v. everyone else debate about where to get the best pastrami, and concluded (paraphrasing):
“Take a cab to La Guardia. Fly to Austin. Rent a car. Drive west on SH 71. Keep driving. Drive some more.
When you come to the town of Dripping Springs, Tx., look for Pieous Pizza. Great pizza (certified by the Neapolitan Pizza authorities), but instead order the pastrami.”
Suggestion: Don’t appoint any of these judges to the Supreme Court since they apparently can’t understand clear English.
They should not be judges in any court.
Even though they took an oath to uphold the constitution they use every trick and delaying tactic imaginable. If not outright defying a SCOTUS ruling.
There should be laws against such things……..hahaha…if only….
Pedos flock to professions where they can have access to your kids.
Tyrants flock to professions where they can have access to your rights.
This is a manifestation of the simple battle between good and evil. Give good people a righteous limit and they will uphold it. Give evil people a righteous limit and they will brainstorm ways to violate it. It really is that simple.
Consider a prominent controversy involving human life. Evil people consider a pregnancy a problem if they don’t want it and then seek to remove the human life from inside (to its demise). Thus, said evil people go about redefining language and manipulating human emotion to achieve their desired outcome–which is unfettered ability to legally kill and remove the human life inside. Two examples of redefining language include calling the human life a “fetus” and calling the procedure to kill and remove the human life “ab0rti0n”. Both terms deflect our minds away from the truth of the matter. Of course an example of manipulating human emotion is shouting that women must be able to control their own bodies–without any mention of the additional human life involved in their “control”.
So it is with firearms and firearm laws. Evil people don’t want the hard limit that government cannot impede access to firearms. Thus they seek to redefine language and manipulate human emotion to circumvent the hard limit. The fact that the Bruen decision makes that difficult is simply another obstacle to overcome. And we see exactly that, with various governments and courts throwing different strategies against the proverbial wall to see what sticks.
Most things baffle the left wing NY Times and left wing judges if its anything to do with actually letting Americans exercise constitutional rights..