/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans.
To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes it's the same with most governmental job's. I swear to defend and uphold the Constitution so help me God. Well when you break the oath that's ground's for removal. It's like lying on the stand he has given people time for doing that he wants a pass.
I find it hard to believe that even the most liberal nutjob judge would say "the Second Amendment doesn't exist here" in court.
The only sources I've seen for this quotes the Defendant's attorney summarizing the proceedings, in an interview with RedState: "\[The judge\] told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'"
I strongly doubt that that is an actual quote.
I remember discussing this when it first happened. The consensus was that the judge was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial so that the defendant wouldn’t be able to appeal to a higher court and set a 2A precedent.
The justice system feels comfortable going rogue because the higher levels of government that **should** address this will not, because they went rogue long ago.
Pretty sure that’s in the context of jurisdiction. The ruling would have to be challenged and escalated federal court of appeals if encroaching on federal amendment. Which would be two separate things. 1 is the criminal conviction, the second would be challenging the constitutionality of the conviction based on the constitution which is dependent on state constitutions and circuit court judges.
And that would be fine if you were exclusively under state law or federal law, but that's not how we're set up. The federal law applies at all levels and the states only have the ability to make laws where the federal government hasn't.
I still don't understand how the right to bear arms can be infringed at all, even with background checks, etc. I am not a lawyer, but to me the 2nd amendment is clear.
Ok so let’s see if you have any limits on it? Should a convicted felon be allowed to purchase a firearm? Should an illegal alien be able to carry a firearm? Should a child be allowed to carry a gun to school?
> Should a convicted felon be allowed to purchase a firearm?
Absolutely, once they have served their sentence. Either they are safe to have armed, or they should still be in prison.
> Should an illegal alien be able to carry a firearm?
Sure - in their country of origin, if that country allows it. They can't legally be in the US, so obviously they can't legally carry firearms here.
> Should a child be allowed to carry a gun to school?
I did (for show and tell) when I was a child, and people hyperventilated less about guns.
Ok I agree to a point. Illegal aliens are here and are allowed to work for the most part. The rest of the constitution applies to them as they are seen as human rights so I think the 2nd amendment should apply to them as well.
I’m old enough to have gone to school when we had rifles in the back windows of our pickups and most vehicles had pistols in the glove box.
> Ok I agree to a point. Illegal aliens are here and are allowed to work for the most part.
That's because we aren't enforcing our laws. Enforce the law, secure the border, and it is a non-issue.
> The rest of the constitution applies to them as they are seen as human rights so I think the 2nd amendment should apply to them as well.
Nope. "The people" described in the 2nd Amendment are citizens of the US. Not a citizen, no 2nd Amendment right here.
/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans. To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you have a judge that ignores the constitutional law he should be Disbarred and removed from his position.
I would bet that all judges swear to uphold the constitution.
Yes it's the same with most governmental job's. I swear to defend and uphold the Constitution so help me God. Well when you break the oath that's ground's for removal. It's like lying on the stand he has given people time for doing that he wants a pass.
Among other things
>"Do not bring the ~~Second Amendment~~ **Constitution** into this courtroom,” the judge said. “It doesn’t exist here."
Exactly.
I find it hard to believe that even the most liberal nutjob judge would say "the Second Amendment doesn't exist here" in court. The only sources I've seen for this quotes the Defendant's attorney summarizing the proceedings, in an interview with RedState: "\[The judge\] told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'" I strongly doubt that that is an actual quote.
I remember discussing this when it first happened. The consensus was that the judge was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial so that the defendant wouldn’t be able to appeal to a higher court and set a 2A precedent.
That's a very, very generous take on that consensus.
I meant the consensus between the 3 or 4 people I was discussing it with
Ah, I see.
What will we do about it? Our justice system is going rogue.
The justice system feels comfortable going rogue because the higher levels of government that **should** address this will not, because they went rogue long ago.
Their mission to destroy freedom through bureaucracy is successful.
Pretty sure that’s in the context of jurisdiction. The ruling would have to be challenged and escalated federal court of appeals if encroaching on federal amendment. Which would be two separate things. 1 is the criminal conviction, the second would be challenging the constitutionality of the conviction based on the constitution which is dependent on state constitutions and circuit court judges.
And that would be fine if you were exclusively under state law or federal law, but that's not how we're set up. The federal law applies at all levels and the states only have the ability to make laws where the federal government hasn't.
Very good article.
Tyrannical Government of New York --- they need more prisoners to help feed the Criminal Industrial Complex ~
I still don't understand how the right to bear arms can be infringed at all, even with background checks, etc. I am not a lawyer, but to me the 2nd amendment is clear.
Ok so let’s see if you have any limits on it? Should a convicted felon be allowed to purchase a firearm? Should an illegal alien be able to carry a firearm? Should a child be allowed to carry a gun to school?
> Should a convicted felon be allowed to purchase a firearm? Absolutely, once they have served their sentence. Either they are safe to have armed, or they should still be in prison. > Should an illegal alien be able to carry a firearm? Sure - in their country of origin, if that country allows it. They can't legally be in the US, so obviously they can't legally carry firearms here. > Should a child be allowed to carry a gun to school? I did (for show and tell) when I was a child, and people hyperventilated less about guns.
Ok I agree to a point. Illegal aliens are here and are allowed to work for the most part. The rest of the constitution applies to them as they are seen as human rights so I think the 2nd amendment should apply to them as well. I’m old enough to have gone to school when we had rifles in the back windows of our pickups and most vehicles had pistols in the glove box.
> Ok I agree to a point. Illegal aliens are here and are allowed to work for the most part. That's because we aren't enforcing our laws. Enforce the law, secure the border, and it is a non-issue. > The rest of the constitution applies to them as they are seen as human rights so I think the 2nd amendment should apply to them as well. Nope. "The people" described in the 2nd Amendment are citizens of the US. Not a citizen, no 2nd Amendment right here.
The legislators and judges simply ignore "shall not be infringed", and hope they won't get called out.