Remix.run Logo
15155 6 hours ago

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work.

"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

mananaysiempre 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)

advisedwang 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?

iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads.

Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here.

Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.

autoexec 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads.

Somehow I doubt that many 2nd amendment supporters would be okay with "You don't need a registration number on your gun, it'll just be illegal to carry/use it anywhere except private property"

iamnothere 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Some would, some wouldn’t. There are some who only care about home defense or sport shooting on private land. Open carry and CCW folks would be quite upset, yes.

The biggest problem with this (for the first group) would be conveyance from buyer to seller or to/from a range or hunting grounds.

Sohcahtoa82 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways.

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...

15155 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW: this isn't a universally-applicable statement, plenty of states forbid DWI during any and all operation of motor vehicles, including on private property.

chroma 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think in almost all states DUI applies to private roads accessible to the public, such as parking lots and driveways. Mythbusters drove drunk on a closed course in California and that was legal.

Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.

kotaKat 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If they didn't want you to drink, John Deere wouldn't have put a cupholder on it. C'mon, that's entrapment!

doubled112 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ontario, Canada has stunt driving laws that extend past the road to parking lots, farmer's fields, and more.

cindyllm 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

sidewndr46 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is most definitely completely false. All EPA laws apply to all vehicles originally sold as road legal forever.

chroma 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do F1 cars have VINs? I’m pretty sure you don’t need a VIN on a car if it stays off public roads. Also driving is not a right enshrined by the constitution.

jp191919 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.

bigbadfeline an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?

Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.

15155 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me.

Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string.

FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.

SpicyLemonZest 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".

15155 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

SpicyLemonZest 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.

15155 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity

If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Established law for decades" seems to me to be almost the opposite of "neener neener", which I take to be more along the lines of "cutesy legal tricks".

StefanBatory 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

15155 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Basic English skills? Why would the prefatory clause limit the latter? Even the most left-leaning [current] SCOTUS justices didn't/don't attempt to make this argument.

'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'

Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?

doodlebugging 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The fact that you and another poster on this thread jumped in with almost exactly the same bullshit example is interesting.

15155 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"Bullshit" - also known as: "settled jurisprudence I don't agree with."

doodlebugging an hour ago | parent [-]

You're wrong here. I was commenting on your short post and the short post of another user that made nearly exactly the same comment within a pretty short time period.

This is you.

'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'

Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?

This is the other guy.

"A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and use Toasters, shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

Looks like a bullshit example that makes an apples to steam engines comparison employed by two posters shilling for the same reason - support of a conclusion they both believe in.

You don't know me. You will never know me.

You totally misunderstood that I was pointing out that your bullshit example looks a lot like a poorly formed drunk asshole's talking point that some illiterati group has contrived to be used on uninformed, semi-literate readers every time they find someone challenging something about the second amendment.

You did a better job with your other post laying out all those quotes from contemporaries who were actively involved in deriving the final language of the amendment. I do think that you could have improved that by adding context, like the other side of the conversation, for example. It isn't unusual though for people to cherry-pick anything that fits their desired conclusion so I am not surprised.

15155 an hour ago | parent [-]

That other fellow more or less cloned my comments after half an hour, I have no idea why.

This doesn't make the underlying English analysis inaccurate: the prefatory clause does not somehow restrict the rest of the sentence.

> You don't know me. You will never know me.

I'll continue manufacturing firearms, and you'll continue being able to do nothing about it.

scotus_speaks 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

15155 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And you still lose on the merits:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

dabluecaboose 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can believe a guy who wrote a pissy dissent over a case he was on the losing side of, or...

How about the people who made it happen in the first place?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), [1774-1776]

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"Context clues" are a critical part of reading comprehension. When the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear, the other writing surrounding the word or phrase can be used as a clue as to what the author meant. Using context clues, we can track down what they probably meant.

15155 5 hours ago | parent [-]

But but but the Framers disagreed on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights at all! That must mean that they didn't think people should own arms!

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
JCTheDenthog 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and use Toasters, shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

doodlebugging 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that you and another poster on this thread jumped in with almost exactly the same bullshit example is interesting.

EDIT: Either you or that guy with the number uname is a parrot. He squawked about my comment so it must be him. You just downvoted with no comment. At least he found some words.

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand?

The word "regulated", which has no semantic overlap with the modern meaning of the same word.

2 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
JCTheDenthog 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts"

It's the ATF and congressional Democrats (who are very much not "gun rights advocates") who created that "absurd fiction".