Re: Guns needed in church now? Both sad and funny Re: Judge blocks New York's ban on carrying guns in places of worship

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/30/22 11:43 AM, Mr. B1ack wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 6:12 AM, scooter lied:
>>
>>
>> "Gronk" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:tm6s4d$2g1cj$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> scooter lied:
>>>> "Gronk" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> scooter lied:
>>>>>> "Gronk" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> On 11/6/2022 1:08 AM, Good News wrote:
>>>>>>>> A federal judge has halted New York officials from enforcing the
>>>>>>>> state’s ban on carrying firearms in places of worship.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a 44-page order on Thursday, Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., a Trump
>>>>>>>> appointee, said the restriction — which makes it a felony to
>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>> gun at a church or religious institution or event — runs afoul of
>>>>>>>> the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this revelation of fact and truth left you utterly
>>>>>> speechless.. Seems
>>>>>> there is no end of positives from this....
>>>>>
>>>>> You and Sinatra should review Heller...
>>>>
>>>> You certainly should.
>>>
>>> Here ya go
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>>> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
>>>
>>> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
>>> unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
>>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a
>>> right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
>>> whatsoever and for whatever purpose. "
>>
>> Which was never in doubt.
>
> It's good to know you now agree with the proposition that the right to
> keep and bear arms does not mean you have a right to just whatever arms
> you may wish to have.  In other words, you agree with the proposition
> that some laws prohibiting certain arms to the populace do not infringe
> the right and therefore are constitutional.


It only confirms that you may keep and bear any "arms" you choose.

of course if you don't have the RIGHT to enter a "private business" then
your arms don't have a RIGHT to enter, either.

But if the RIGHT is to enter any private business while Black or Female
then the RIGHT to keep and bear arms also gives you the right to enter
any private business while armed because it too is a RIGHT just as the
RIGHT to equal treatment under the law. Which make it a question of ALL
RIGHTS being equally protected by the law... the RIGHT to enter a
private property while Black or Female is equal to the RIGHT to enter
the private property while exercising your 2nd Amendment is also
exercising equality to the RIGHT of a Black oe Female to enter.

Either the gun owner has the RIGHT to BEAR their arms in a store the
same as Blacks or Females have a RIGHT to enter of NONE of them have a
RIGHT to enter and it's up to the property owner and the owners property
RIGHTS to allow or limit access to any person by NAME or race or gender
or by any other known RIGHT they might have and try to force their way
into the store using as an equality issue. Either all RIGHTS are
equally given access or none have any claim to equal access... that is
equal. The RIGHTS of a person who is Black or Female are no greater
than the RIGHTS of a person who is exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear
arms or exercising their RIGHT to Religion by wearing religious insignia
or prayer paraphernalia. They all have the exact same RIGHTS of being a
person as every other person under the equal protection clause.


*Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

--
-Reality Matters-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

exercising equality to the RIGHT of a Black or Female to enter.

Either the gun owner has the RIGHT to BEAR their arms in a store the

same as Blacks or Females have a RIGHT to enter or NONE of them have a