2nd Amendment

Laws dont matter if the state next door (PA and IN for those 2 cities) have lax laws. Also, it is not hard to own in NY or NYC. You just have to work a LITTLE. I live in NYS, and have lived in Nassau, New York (Manhattan) and Sullivan counties. Was able to own in all three. Nassau and NY counties as a DA and AUSA and NY and Sullivan as a private citizen.

 

There is literally an entire TREATY signed by a Founder POTUS and mostly still Founder Congress. It, quite literally, says as part of it "The United States is NOT nor was it EVER a "Christian Nation".". The false sense of we were a pious nation is clearly from being taught "The Pilgrims came for religious freedom! To just practice as they saw fit!". While leaving out that they were actually chased out of England and Holland over a period of time because they kept attempting to make THEIR Puritanism THE NATIONAL RELIGION of each. Then we also are never taught that the Puritans had no interest in "religious freedom". They wanted somewhere where they were the LAW and could force EVERYONE to practice THEIRS. They chased out and persecuted the Quakers. The PEACEFUL QUAKERS. Because the Quakers did not want to practice the Puritanism Sect of Christianity.

 

The last part I agree with wholeheartedly. It is the endpoint of the Hippy 60s and the "Lets agree to disagree" mentality making people think FACT and "well my opinion is......." are equal.

I will pose the other Con Law thought exercise I use all the time in another.

 

The red flash I actually know, from my Prosecutor days. It is to tell the officer that there will likely be a weapon, be ready, address it and have them put it in plain sight to avoid freakouts. Because, like it or not, the average officer is well "Average". The truth is, and I tell anyone with CCP, YOU should be saying to the officer, "I have a Concealed Permit. It is currently concealed. To avoid any misunderstanding I will remove it from the holster or my bag and place it out of reach." for safety. Then again I also advocate that police actions should not have the "Well. In that microsecond........" justification anyway. If you SEE a gun, and it is not pointed at you. It is not a threat at that second.

 

Work a little, lol. Its more like spending hundreds of dollars and spending a year or more of your life and if the bureaucrat is in a really good mood they may say yes, more likely they are waiting on a bribe. The other way is to have connections in the government.

 

Wasn't there a case where the police shot someone who had a concealed permit and the police was told he was carrying.

 

Yes. Hence the second part. "Police should not be able to use "I felt...... in the moment.........." as a reason to discharge a weapon". In that case, if I remember, his gun was still away. The cop was aware of it, but freaked out when he "saw it".

 

Guys. Trust me. As a former NYC DA? I know better than most how untrustworthy cops are. Was fresh out of Law. A few months on the job. The R Convention happened. Police arrested protesters who DARED to protest outside of the "approved areas" in another part of the city. Then, instead of booking them. Started playing "Move the suspect" for 6 hours. From precinct to precinct. A not small portion of the DA's office and City Attorney's office (criminal and civil separations) were at the door of each precinct when a GOOD COP gave us a heads up they were being moved over and over but did not know where the next move was to. That was a nice sealed high 7 figure settlement and a few ranking cops losing jobs and pensions for their "but but but the MAYOR CLEARLY STATED they were to protest where he said they could only!, "then why didnt you book them?!", "because they would be released then and not "learn their lesson"!". Thank God it was still Morganthau back then who gave ZERO Fs what Mayor Mike thought.

 

I think you should reread your post.

 

Only one that year I remember anything happening on was the one in SC. Where the cop CLAIMS the suspect he stopped for a broken tail light (Not illegal as long as one works in SC) then tried to steal his taser and ran. The police congratulated him publicly. Hours later a video of him PLACING his taser next to the man he shot in the back, his partner telling him "dont do that", the officer putting it back and telling him to say attempted. The shooter was fired that day. Think the partner retired with a VERY limited pension for admitting in court he lied at the scene, helped cover it up and helped the shooter make a good excuse.

 

Textualist? So you have to be in a militia? Remember "textualist" means what the text reads. Not "the obvious intent". And original intent was no restrictions at all. It was meant to let the population own whatever the government can. That means a WORKING tank or fighter. Not a disarmed one. Nukes. That was the intent. In those days? You could make a gun (they were extremely inaccurate and rifling was a very new concept even then) or a cannon and be on EQUAL GROUND.

Textual and Original Intent? Like it or not? Are not synonyms. One means "what it reads and only what it reads" and one means "What they obviously intended".

 

If I take the meaning of the 2nd Amendment right, it say to be able to form militia's when they are needed. Everyone who wants or needs to, should own a firearm capable of being used in a militia. So 2A seems to say everyone has the right to own a military grade weapon.

 

That is "original intent" actually. "So the population is not subjugated? They should be able to own military hardware. Currently if I was to buy a tank? It has to be totally disarmed first. I have looked into it.