This has been sitting in the fridge waiting to be prepared for a while now. I'm at a point where I'm really looking at the court system and by extension the "justice system" [sic] as irreparably broken. There needs ot be an exterminator who takes out judges from top to bottom. Take out AGs who are either not doing their jobs or purposely targetting people for political reasons. Police, including commanders at all levels need to be purged. Not only that, but there needs to be a mass review of laws on the books and those found to be in clear violation of the US Constitution need to be nullified completely. None of this waiting for a person "with standing" and then all the lawyering that takes years while the unconstitutional laws are in effect. What's gotten my ire up? Read on.
First we had this opinion by SCOTUS:
First, government regulations are not neutral and gener- ally applicable, and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, whenever they treat any compa- rable secular activity more favorably than religious exer- cise. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3–4). It is no answer that a State treats some comparable secular businesses or other activities as poorly as or even less fa- vorably than the religious exercise at issue. Id., at ___–___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–3).
No. FIRST:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
We're done here. None of this "strict scrutiny" bullshit. People exercising their religion? Yes? Then the state can get bent. And mind you this constitutional guarantee was created by civilized people who didn't engage in human sacrifice so none of that BS here.
Second, whether two activities are comparable for pur- poses of the Free Exercise Clause must be judged against the asserted government interest that justifies the regula- tion at issue. Id., at ___ (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (describ- ing secular activities treated more favorably than religious worship that either “have contributed to the spread of COVID–19” or “could” have presented similar risks). Com- parability is concerned with the risks various activities pose, not the reasons why people gather.
This "government interest" thing needs to go as well. There is no exception in the constitution for "government interest" it says "shall make no law". Period. The founders weren't stupid. If they wanted to allow "government interest" they would have said so. The only "government interest" are laws passed by the legislature via the people's representatives. Not the CDC, FDA or governors dictats.
On a good note:
Fourth, even if the government withdraws or modifies a COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not necessarily moot the case. And so long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants “remain under a constant threat” that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.
This is a tactic that I (and others) have discussed where these states (and even the fed) try to avoid precedent producing decisions by withdrawing unconstitutional "laws", which are actually regulations created by bodies with no legislative powers whatsoever, before the court can rule. This tactic has been often used by the state of NY which we'll get to later.
Now back to the nonsense. Here's Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer:
I would deny the application largely for the reasons stated in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2021) (KAGAN, J., dissenting). The First Amendment requires that a State treat religious conduct as well as the State treats comparable secular conduct.
No that's not what the First Amendment requires. It says "Shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's what it says. Y'all just put some fancy bullshit around it to justify the infringements of these rights by the state by declaring some "State interest" policy.
California limits religious gath- erings in homes to three households. If the State also limits all secular gatherings in homes to three households, it has complied with the First Amendment.
Both the "restrictions on gatherings in private homes and religious gatherings are unlawful. Period and full stop. That we have judges at multiple levels of the court system who do not understand this basic principle of American life and culture is a problem that needs to be addressed.
So lets go to NYS. NYS has a blatantly unconstitutional law that prohibits carrying a gun.
Again from the supreme legal document of the land:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Bear arms means carrying that shit around.
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. You can not only keep, as in possess, but you can walk around with your gun. No need for "strict scrutiny" or any of that garbage. It says what it says. Let's look at this case:
For the first time in more than a decade, the United States Supreme Court will be reviewing a Second Amendment case that could change the landscape when it comes to gun right laws in this country. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a law in New York that sets extremely stringent limits on who can carry a gun outside of the home.
"sets extremely stringent limits on who can carry a gun outside of the home."
How did this get this far without being struck down. The very first judge that heard this should have said "shall not be infringed" and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Not only that, there is no reason whatsoever to "hear arguments". The constitution says what it says: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This law is a blatant infringement. We're done here.
Everyone involved with creating and enforcing this law should be liable for civil rights violations. Personally with no limits on damages. The only way these laws and "regulations" stop being produced is when the people making them have to deal with the consequences personally.
New York imposes some of the strictest gun laws in the country. It requires New Yorkers applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public to show they have “proper cause,” or in other words, a special need for self-protection.
This is that 'state interest" BS. There is no "proper cause" exception in the Second Amendment. This is made up BS created to enable the state to bypass restrictions imposed upon it.
“We look forward to presenting the state’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court and to showing how New York’s laws protect public safety in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” James said.First, there is no "public safety" exception in the Second Amendment. Secondly, we can all see now that the state is using this concept of "public safety" as a means to grab power and disenfranchise the citizens. This must be stopped completely.
The stakes here are far larger than whether you can carry a gun, concealed or not. This case along with the California case is about whether the rights we have and that the states or clearly prohibited from infringing upon actually exist. If the plain and clear reading of the supreme document of the land cannot prevail in these cases then YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. And that goes FAR beyond bladed weapons and firearms.
