Yeah poor choice of words. Like someone else said here, her thought process was most likely along the lines that the defendant’s second amendment right isn’t being challenged, as much as the state laws he broke by doing this.
Yeah poor choice of words. Like someone else said here, her thought process was most likely along the lines that the defendant’s second amendment right isn’t being challenged, as much as the state laws he broke by doing this.
uzi@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
The constituion supersedes state laws.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 5 months ago
Right, when they conflict. But there are laws against ghost guns in New York that this person allegedly broke, which is why this is happening.
Just because there are laws against ghost guns doesn’t mean your right to own a gun is being infringed upon. This has been proven.
There’s a difference between “manufacture” and “keep and bear”.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 months ago
Paying close attention to the details of the case will be lost on the people this is meant to engage. “A judge said my rights don’t matter!” Sigh…
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 5 months ago
Yep it’s all just reactionary. All we can do is point it out.
uzi@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
That is an infringment on firearms. There are to no restrictions. Private ciztens bought canons. American citizens are free to manufacture and sell ghost guns.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 5 months ago
Yeah……no. Sorry, the right to manufacture weapons is not covered in the constitution. The right to keep and bear them, is.
The second amendment is not a blanket free for all when it comes to guns, as much as you may be told by conservative media. It just allows you to own and defend yourself with them.