upvote

points

by daveguy3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby charcircuit3 hours ago|
next
[-]
The full quote is.

>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.

This is not about guns in the courtroom. This is a claim that the 2nd amendment of the constitution does not apply to the state of New York.

reply
upvoteby daveguy1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Weird. I have seen a bunch of people repeating that quote, but not a single source for the full court transcript. Court transcript are public record, available for request by anyone. So it's real strange no one seems to have a source reference, no? Did you read the transcript? Happen to have a reference?
reply
upvoteby charcircuit1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Me either, that's why I replied opened endedly since I didn't have the full context.
reply
upvoteby lcnPylGDnU4H9OF1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Interesting point. The quote appears to be the defense attorney's interpretation of the judge's statements.

https://scnr.com/article/hobby-gunsmith-in-nyc-convicted-aft...

IMO, it depends on the events in court; if there was extensive argumentation about that and the judge is finally saying that it's been discussed to death and there's no point bringing it up, that seems fine. (I don't want to read the actual court transcripts to figure out what the attorney is referring to, so this comment is intentionally inconclusive.)

reply
upvoteby throwway1203852 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No, what the judge is saying is that just arguing that you're allowed to do whatever "gun things" you want because of the 2nd amendment in a state district court is specious. You can argue the merits of the specific case based on the precedent in that and other courts that have jurisdiction but simply standing up and arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number doesn't carry water. To make that argument you'd first have to take the F out of ATF and roll back a lot of case law that exists at the federal level that does give states the right to enact some controls.

It's a gross oversimplification of what the judge was trying to say to imply that they don't care about the 2nd amendment or the constitution.

reply
upvoteby lcnPylGDnU4H9OF2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> arguing baldly that the 2nd amendment lets you make guns and sell them without a serial number

I'm not familiar with the details of the case but, reading the thread, it seems this didn't occur if the guns "never even left his house".

reply
upvoteby charcircuit2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Such a thing could have been phrased better by the judge in such a scenario. I personally feel the statement that was made was unprofessional at best.
reply
upvoteby mothballed2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This has nothing to do with the federal laws that are enforced by ATF ... what he did was totally legally federally.

And he didn't sell them, you pulled that out of your ass.

It doesn't appear you have any familiarity with the case yet you purport to understand what the judge was saying by completely mischaracterizing the case with outright falsehoods. But I suppose if you just tell straight up lies confidently enough, someone will believe you!

reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply