“Ghost guns” are protected, theyre just home made guns. Even the atf says so.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
She’s right that states and municipalities have the right impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.
Honestly my heart goes out to the defendant. He could easily have easily been a coworker of mine, and if my coworker told me about his fun hobby making ghost guns without any kind of permit or license in this city of all places, I would have dropped everything to talk sense into him.
He sounds like any other gun nerd, but he straight up ignored gun law in a place with famously strict gun laws, and with serious gusto.
defendant’s 36 ghost gun arsenal
I’m kind of surprised he was able to make as many guns as he did before metro police came knocking.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Federal law overrides state law. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
The 2nd still applies in NYC
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
I don’t remember much con law, but I seem to recall using 7a to incorporate 2a is very much a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t prospect, and justices have historically leaned on stare decisis to avoid cutting the knot.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 5 months ago
It also says taxes and an ATF payment are needed.
Did the subject of the post’s article do that?
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Only if they plan to sell it, or if they are making an NFA item.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 5 months ago
No that’s a separate clause. You’re misreading.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts only federal government, save for the apparently difficult case of part of 7A (due process). Using that clause to incorporate 2A by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 months ago
No, that isn’t how it works at all. That is a view before the Civil War and partially up till the 1960, but SCOTUS has made it clear. The rights are for everyone, state/federal. The states cannot violate your rights in the constitution.
One of the arguments in Miranda is that the state did not have to follow the 5th Amendment. As you can tell, that did not work as the state thought.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 5 months ago
Hmm maybe my information is out of date or I just need to review. Which case incorporated 2A? Was it more recent than DC-Heller?