I'm not seeing why anyone would be particularly impressed with the intermediate results in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case. Cautious optimism is about all I can muster, and only with supreme effort. I heard the oral arguments and can only say that I was singularly unimpressed with the performances of most of the justices. Roberts, for example, either fails to understand rights, the Constitution, or both. The Constitution does NOT "grant" rights, yet he asserted that it was so. The Constitution RECOGNIZES and PROTECTS them. Roberts showed himself insufficient to the task of hearing these arguments by that virtue alone, even if he appears to otherwise lean in favor of the 2A. I am tempted to put money on his not understanding that which constitutes (defines) a right, were I in a betting mood. Furthermore, I would almost bet money I do not have that Roberts, and perhaps several other members of the bench are unaware of the different sorts of rights that exist, much less that they would be able to describe them in a show of understanding.
Furthermore, the justices' tone bordered on the wishy-washy in several instances as they posed questions and responses to Underwood, counsel for the state of New York. I would have let her know in no uncertain terms that she was absolutely mistaken on her points of logic, which were embarrassingly failed. They did point out the failures, but I do not believe they did so with sufficient force, as they indulged in the brands of equivocation for which SCOTUS is so notorious.. Perhaps they feel clarity and sufficiency is not important. Regardless, where questions of fundamental rights are concerned, clarity, correctness, and completeness on one's knowledge, deliberations, and responses to flawed argument are absolutely paramount.
Another problem readily apparent is that the arguments made by plaintiff's counsel is based on a reliance on "text and tradition", which is a non-principled basis for justification of the right. It is perhaps necessary to argue so weakly because the system only recognizes such things, but if this is the case, so much more damning is it of the train wreck that is American jurisprudence.
Rights are non-negotiable and may not be circumscribed in the ways that the Court has so erroneously asserted for many decades. Rights are absolute, but with those rights come the obligations of each man not to trespass upon the equally valid claims of his fellows. The assumption that rights may be regulated and through regulation, effectively attenuated is cancer to all freedom, immediately reducing a man to some degree of servitude, thereby rendering him as no longer properly free.
The correct view on this is as follows. Rights are absolute, PERIOD. So, too, are the obligations to bring no unjust harm to others. Therefore, exercise your rights as you may wish, bearing in mind that you will be held accountable for any unjust results of your choices. Carry your gun where, when, and how you deem fitting for yourself, but if your comportment brings another to unjust harm, be prepared to pay the price. The notion of prior restraint pursuant to the assumption that a right is not absolute and may therefore me circumscribed and thereby effectively circumvented for ostensibly noble reasons is yet another cancer upon free societies. It is a perfect case of ends justifying means, which is a principle that courts routinely reject with much hissing and stamping of feet for right and proper reasons. And yet, they hypocritically accept it in the cases of rights, doubtlessly because it suits the agenda of governmental power to do so. No doubt deciding that this case is one of those instances of "but this is different...", we get treated to the egregiously abusive vagaries of equivocation and the evasion of the most basic truths as embodied in the principles of human freedom and the rights that evolve therefrom. Such behavior is, at best, gross incompetence, but because they presume to wield the authority and men with guns will kill you if you protest too effectively, they get to dictate and we get to kowtow.
I will be glad if they strike down the NY permitting system, but feel inclined to bet money I don't have that they will leave doors wide open for disingenuous circumvention through the language of exceptions, much as Scalia did in Heller, which effectively nullified the decision in great measure.
There appears much left to be desired in this challenge to NY state's phony baloney restrictions on the sovereign rights of free men of that land. The fact that the justices are not quite right about rights and their nature leaves me with threadbare reasons for optimism here. I fully expect them to ruin this opportunity to make a clean, clear, and perfectly non-equivocating statement on the relevant issues by muddying the waters with the language of half-measures that will allow the corrupt governments of NYS to effectively continue as they have, at least in great majority, moving forward.
Rights are non-negotiable and may not be circumscribed in the ways that the Court has so erroneously asserted for many decades. Rights are absolute, but with those rights come the obligations of each man not to trespass upon the equally valid claims of his fellows. The assumption that rights may be regulated and through regulation, effectively attenuated is cancer to all freedom, immediately reducing a man to some degree of servitude, thereby rendering him as no longer properly free.
The correct view on this is as follows. Rights are absolute, PERIOD. So, too, are the obligations to bring no unjust harm to others. Therefore, exercise your rights as you may wish, bearing in mind that you will be held accountable for any unjust results of your choices. Carry your gun where, when, and how you deem fitting for yourself, but if your comportment brings another to unjust harm, be prepared to pay the price. The notion of prior restraint pursuant to the assumption that a right is not absolute and may therefore me circumscribed and thereby effectively circumvented for ostensibly noble reasons is yet another cancer upon free societies. It is a perfect case of ends justifying means, which is a principle that courts routinely reject with much hissing and stamping of feet for right and proper reasons. And yet, they hypocritically accept it in the cases of rights, doubtlessly because it suits the agenda of governmental power to do so. No doubt deciding that this case is one of those instances of "but this is different...", we get treated to the egregiously abusive vagaries of equivocation and the evasion of the most basic truths as embodied in the principles of human freedom and the rights that evolve therefrom. Such behavior is, at best, gross incompetence, but because they presume to wield the authority and men with guns will kill you if you protest too effectively, they get to dictate and we get to kowtow.
I will be glad if they strike down the NY permitting system, but feel inclined to bet money I don't have that they will leave doors wide open for disingenuous circumvention through the language of exceptions, much as Scalia did in Heller, which effectively nullified the decision in great measure.
There appears much left to be desired in this challenge to NY state's phony baloney restrictions on the sovereign rights of free men of that land. The fact that the justices are not quite right about rights and their nature leaves me with threadbare reasons for optimism here. I fully expect them to ruin this opportunity to make a clean, clear, and perfectly non-equivocating statement on the relevant issues by muddying the waters with the language of half-measures that will allow the corrupt governments of NYS to effectively continue as they have, at least in great majority, moving forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment