Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Those are not facts, they're expressions of your feelings about New York's gun laws and assault weapons bans about which you fixate on pistol grips.

That you feel there is no motivation other than that of violating peoples civil liberties doesn't mean there is no other motivation.

The motivation--to mitigate gun violence--has been explained to you throughout these threads.

That you don't agree, or do not understand, or are deliberately obtuse does not negate the motivation,

and does not make your feelings about the issue "facts;" they're merely opinions.

InfraBlue wrote:

Those are not facts, they're expressions of your feelings about New York's gun laws and assault weapons bans about which you fixate on pistol grips.

That is incorrect. It is a fact that there is no compelling government interest to justify those laws. That's why NYC backed down and repealed their law as soon as the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

If you think I'm wrong and there is a compelling government interest, go ahead and say what that compelling government interest is.

InfraBlue wrote:

That you feel there is no motivation other than that of violating peoples civil liberties doesn't mean there is no other motivation.

The motivation--to mitigate gun violence--has been explained to you throughout these threads.

That you don't agree, or do not understand, or are deliberately obtuse does not negate the motivation.

The fact that no one can state any other motivation is pretty strong evidence that there is no other motivation.

Neither law has anything to do with mitigating gun violence.

What negates your claimed motivation is the fact that neither law has any plausible connection with reducing gun violence.

InfraBlue wrote:

and does not make your feelings about the issue "facts;" they're merely opinions.

Maybe so, but we weren't talking about my feelings on the issue. We were talking about the actual facts that progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties, and solely for the sadistic pleasure they get out of violating people's civil liberties.

Specifically, your statement that "the only purpose of that law was to make it difficult for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights," is an expression of your feelings about New York's gun laws; it's an opinion.

Your statement that, "since there is no compelling government interest to justify outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, that is another deliberate attempt to violate people's civil liberties" is an opinion based on your confused interpretation of the laws concerning judicial scrutiny and the Equal Protection Clause. These laws have not been shown to violate the EPC, and consequently are not subject to strict scrutiny and the requirement to prove a necessity to satisfy a compelling government interest. Your argument is irrelevant.

Wrong. The motivation of reducing gun violence behind these laws is a fact. That you opine that they don't have any plausible connection with reducing gun violence is irrelevant to the fact.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction.
“The law’s red tape and state database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, the association’s general counsel. “The court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these constitutional infringements were inadequate.”

You sound surprised that Baldimo supports the racist murderers.

I’m not.

Quote:

Specifically, your statement that "the only purpose of that law was to make it difficult for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights," is an expression of your feelings about New York's gun laws; it's an opinion.

That isn't opinion, that's a fact. Why else would NY withdraw their law? It was simply to prevent legal scrutiny, they knew they would loose and would then set a national president for such unconstitutional laws being over turned. How long do you think until NY tries to put the law back into effect?

InfraBlue wrote:

Your statement that, "since there is no compelling government interest to justify outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, that is another deliberate attempt to violate people's civil liberties" is an opinion based on your confused interpretation of the laws concerning judicial scrutiny and the Equal Protection Clause. These laws have not been shown to violate the EPC, and consequently are not subject to strict scrutiny and the requirement to prove a necessity to satisfy a compelling government interest. Your argument is irrelevant.

That isn't how it works, we are talking about Constitutional Rights, not regular laws passed by a state. When it comes to our Rights, he is correct in that the govt has to have a compelling reason to suspend access to Constitutional Rights.

Quote:

Wrong. The motivation of reducing gun violence behind these laws is a fact. That you opine that they don't have any plausible connection with reducing gun violence is irrelevant to the fact.

If has very little to do with gun violence. If it had to do with gun violence they would be targeting those who are most likely to committ crimes with the laws. Instead they are putting a blanket restriction on all US citizens.

Just the other day, a Federal Judge made CA's background check for ammo unconstitutional because it was preventing more legal gun owners from getting ammo than it was non-legal gun owners.
https://kmph.com/news/local/judge-tosses-california-ammunition-purchase-law
Simply put, it was a burdon/infringement on the 2nd Amendment rights of legal gun owers, and there wasn't a good enough justification to leave such a law in tact.

Quote:

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction.
“The law’s red tape and state database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, the association’s general counsel. “The court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these constitutional infringements were inadequate.”

Just the other day, a Federal Judge made CA's background check for ammo unconstitutional because it was preventing more legal gun owners from getting ammo than it was non-legal gun owners.
https://kmph.com/news/local/judge-tosses-california-ammunition-purchase-law
Simply put, it was a burdon/infringement on the 2nd Amendment rights of legal gun owers, and there wasn't a good enough justification to leave such a law in tact.

Quote:

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group's motion for a preliminary injunction.
“The law’s red tape and state database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense,” said Chuck Michel, the association’s general counsel. “The court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these constitutional infringements were inadequate.”

Specifically, your statement that "the only purpose of that law was to make it difficult for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights," is an expression of your feelings about New York's gun laws; it's an opinion.

Your statement that, "since there is no compelling government interest to justify outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, that is another deliberate attempt to violate people's civil liberties" is an opinion based on your confused interpretation of the laws concerning judicial scrutiny and the Equal Protection Clause. These laws have not been shown to violate the EPC, and consequently are not subject to strict scrutiny and the requirement to prove a necessity to satisfy a compelling government interest. Your argument is irrelevant.

Wrong. The motivation of reducing gun violence behind these laws is a fact.

That you opine that they don't have any plausible connection with reducing gun violence is irrelevant to the fact.

We're talking about you confusing your statements of opinion, e.g. "progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties, and solely for the sadistic pleasure they get out of violating people's civil liberties," with the absurd idea that these are "facts."
They're merely expressions of your injured feelings about these laws.

Canada closes the market and bans assault-style weapons.

Good job, 🇨🇦

Those are your beliefs about the motive behind the law,

and its withdrawal that you stated -- which had more to do with legal political maneuvers in light of the extremely conservative nature of the Supreme Court -- than with your feelings that "the only purpose of that law was to make difficult for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights."

You are incorrect; that's exactly how it works; "regular laws" passed by a state also must not violate Constitutional rights, after it has been shown to violate the Equal Protection Clause. This is why "a compelling reason" was irrelevant in the legal challenges brought against The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 1994.

InfraBlue wrote:

Specifically, your statement that "the only purpose of that law was to make it difficult for people to exercise their Second Amendment rights," is an expression of your feelings about New York's gun laws; it's an opinion.

Your failure to provide any alternative purpose for the law is evidence that my statement is factual and true.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your statement that, "since there is no compelling government interest to justify outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto rifles, that is another deliberate attempt to violate people's civil liberties" is an opinion based on your confused interpretation of the laws concerning judicial scrutiny and the Equal Protection Clause. These laws have not been shown to violate the EPC, and consequently are not subject to strict scrutiny and the requirement to prove a necessity to satisfy a compelling government interest. Your argument is irrelevant.

That is incorrect. All fundamental rights are protected by strict scrutiny.

I'm unsure what you are trying to say about the equal protection clause, but it is wrong. If a law violates the equal protection clause, that doesn't mean that strict scrutiny begins applying to the law.

If a law violates the equal protection clause, that law is outright unconstitutional right then and there, merely for violating the equal protection clause.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. The motivation of reducing gun violence behind these laws is a fact.

Your failure to provide any evidence to support your alleged fact shows otherwise.

InfraBlue wrote:

That you opine that they don't have any plausible connection with reducing gun violence is irrelevant to the fact.

It's not my opinion that you did not provide any evidence to support your claim. Your lack of supporting evidence is clear for all to see.

InfraBlue wrote:

We're talking about you confusing your statements of opinion, e.g. "progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties, and solely for the sadistic pleasure they get out of violating people's civil liberties," with the absurd idea that these are "facts."
They're merely expressions of your injured feelings about these laws.

That is incorrect. Those are statements of fact, and they are proven by your inability to provide any alternative motivation.

I have provided a purpose for the law.

You're merely being redundantly obtuse.

Your obtuseness is anything but factual and truthful.

You're thoroughly confused. A law has to be shown to violate the Equal Protection Clause before it is subjected to strict scrutiny.

Your opinions as to which laws violate the Equal Protection Clause are irrelevant seeing as how the courts make that decision.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

The motivation of reducing gun violence behind these laws is a fact.

Your failure to provide any evidence to support your alleged fact shows otherwise.

Wrong.

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness.

oralloy wrote:

It's not my opinion that you did not provide any evidence to support your claim. Your lack of supporting evidence is clear for all to see.

Wrong.

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness.

oralloy wrote:

Those are statements of fact, and they are proven by your inability to provide any alternative motivation.

Wrong.

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness.

See my response above about your redundant obtuseness,

and your thourogh confusion about the Equal Protection Clause.