Started By
Message

re: New York Judge Says 2nd Amendment 'Doesn't Exist in This Courtroom'

Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:41 am to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424871 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:41 am to
quote:

To say a primary constitutional right "doesnt exist" in your jurisdiction is grounds for removal.

I have to imagine this slanted article is using quotes to further that slant.

Was there already a ruling on the applicability of 2A or a motion in limine about referencing it? The article does not say b/c it's shitty. I got 5 SFP dollars that the judge's comments reference something along those lines, where a ruling was already made and the "it doesn't exist here" comment meant within the trial context.

If I'm correct, the judges ruling will be part of the post-trial appeal. If the judge is wrong, the case gets sent back and they re-do the trial "with the 2A existing in the courtroom".
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
73318 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:09 am to
quote:

Was there already a ruling on the applicability of 2A




Yes. It's called the Constitution, my friend.
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
39665 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:19 am to
while we all appreciate, and have come to expect, you running cover for this judge, its hard to argue context with a direct quote like:
quote:

‘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.'


Everything you said makes sense until the judge says "This is New York".

Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2008
10617 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:32 am to
quote:

Was there already a ruling on the applicability of 2A or a motion in limine about referencing it? The article does not say b/c it's shitty. I got 5 SFP dollars that the judge's comments reference something along those lines, where a ruling was already made and the "it doesn't exist here" comment meant within the trial context.


Let's assume that's the case. Do you not see a problem with said ruling?
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
56874 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:58 am to
quote:

Was there already a ruling on the applicability of 2A


Posted by bluedragon
Birmingham
Member since May 2020
6844 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:18 pm to
It won't go back to that court. She doesn't get a redo.....because she's stupid

She displays a common trait of the left from NY.

There is no slant. Another example of stupid from the left.

It's simple...This will get tossed if the Supreme Court decides "Ghost guns' are legal. Ghost gun is simple, no serial number. So the Supreme Court has to decide .....Did the guns in the Revlutiary War
Posted by bluedragon
Birmingham
Member since May 2020
6844 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:35 pm to
Nothing is "Slanted"

She is a stupid liberal judge and will lose her ruling ......all because she's an idiot from New York, looking like two other idiots in New York.

The "Ghost Gun" case will be heard this fall. His case will be wrapped up in the final decisions concerning this debate on Ghost Guns. Texas had decided that Ghost guns were legal. Biden stepped in it again and decided, "no they aren't" An entire industry waits for the court.

Exactly who determines the legality of a gun by a serial number? Other laws cover what is being claimed here. You can modify a hand gun to fire like an automatic. You can modify a long gun to do the same .....I think it comes down to whether of not the modification is deemed legal or not
The Supreme Court will decide this fall.

At the time of sale ......all the parts were deemed legal ....
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram