- Messages
- 2,963
- Reactions
- 5,584
the 3rd one wasB
Wasn't the judge a black woman?
first was Asian, second was a white woman, the 3rd was the Black woman selected for political reasons
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the 3rd one wasB
Wasn't the judge a black woman?
Merged.There is another thread... @Moderators merge?
Just quickly though, he actually could argue a 2A defense on the grounds that requiring an assemblers permit for exercising a 2A right is unconstitutional.
I would think that more rationally minded folks realize these type of things are "headlines" for affect. Both sides of the aisle employ the same tactics. Just like the left spews statements like "firearms are the #1 leading cause of death among children", or "75% of firearms used in mass shootings are obtained from unsecured firearms of family members".So we have read that the judge said there is no second amendment in her courtroom, as asserted by the defendant's counsel, with no context around it, as reported by a site which traffics in non-factual ideological spew.
I would like some independent verification, including what was said before and after the alleged statement.
That is a much different statement than the headline.I would think that more rationally minded folks realize these type of things are "headlines" for affect. Both sides of the aisle employ the same tactics. Just like the left spews statements like "firearms are the #1 leading cause of death among children", or "75% of firearms used in mass shootings are obtained from unsecured firearms of family members".
The main difference is... the left just make chit up and the right it typically more founded in truth.
What was actually said (from the transcript) and the context was...
Defense counsel: "I intend to argue to the jury that defendant has a 2nd Amendment Right to sell guns he made."
Judge: "I've ruled that due to existing case law in the State of New York, the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover his acts. You will not make that argument."
In bare essence, she flat out barred the defense from making any 2A argument which he both had standing to make (in context of the charges) and was entitled under law to make.
Her reasoning seeming to be that since NY has an established law that infringes on 2A rights, it is not valid to argue protection under the 2A.
What's comical though is the immediate jump to discount or flat out ignore anything that challenges the left ideology. What's the old truism? "Dishonest people always assume everyone else is lying, too."
The headlines are indeed not a direct quote and "sensationalized". Quite true. In essence though there isn't a whole lot of difference. She did in fact bar a 2A argument from being made in her court.. did she not?? However she might have worded it to try and justify invalidating a constitutional protection challenge... the fact remains.That is a much different statement than the headline.
Inalienable Rights supersede all city laws.I would think that more rationally minded folks realize these type of things are "headlines" for affect. Both sides of the aisle employ the same tactics. Just like the left spews statements like "firearms are the #1 leading cause of death among children", or "75% of firearms used in mass shootings are obtained from unsecured firearms of family members".
The main difference is... the left just make chit up and the right it typically more founded in truth.
What was actually said (from the transcript) and the context was...
Defense counsel: "I intend to argue to the jury that defendant has a 2nd Amendment Right to sell guns he made."
Judge: "I've ruled that due to existing case law in the State of New York, the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover his acts. You will not make that argument."
In bare essence, she flat out barred the defense from making any 2A argument which he both had standing to make (in context of the charges) and was entitled under law to make.
Her reasoning seeming to be that since NY has an established law that infringes on 2A rights, it is not valid to argue protection under the 2A.
What's comical though is the immediate jump to discount or flat out ignore anything that challenges the left ideology. What's the old truism? "Dishonest people always assume everyone else is lying, too."
Nah. Society of the founders was far more polite in the 1700s. They were more about writing long letters full of $10 words, learned at institutes of higher learning that only the super rich could afford, to newspapers to change public opinion first. We tend to forget that our country was founded by elitists landowners who actually read Locke and Hobbs, not to say they didn't have good ideas.Our founders would be shooting people by now.
I also heard the Civil War movie was stupid. Maybe folks here have seen it and can comment.
Exactly the point. There won't be any challenge of unconstitutional laws if the judge on the bench bars any such challenge.Let me know when there is a successful 2a challenge to the NY laws the guy was charged under. There won't be.
Consider enrolling in the the Derek Zoolander School.Exactly the point. There won't be any challenge of unconstitutional laws if the judge on the bench bars any such challenge.
- You can't challenge a law on constitutional grounds because we have a law that says it's illegal and we "lesser courts" say it's constitutional?
C'mon Man. Think!
from Dexter Taylor's defense attorneys:Exactly the point. There won't be any challenge of unconstitutional laws if the judge on the bench bars any such challenge.
- You can't challenge a law on constitutional grounds because we have a law that says it's illegal and we "lesser courts" say it's constitutional?
C'mon Man. Think!
where did you get this information?What was actually said (from the transcript) and the context was...
Defense counsel: "I intend to argue to the jury that defendant has a 2nd Amendment Right to sell guns he made."
Judge: "I've ruled that due to existing case law in the State of New York, the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover his acts. You will not make that argument."
There were a litany of charges. Not just manufacturing without a builder permit and possession. News reports seem to only be hitting the highlights of what he was convicted of.Dexter was not charged with attempting to sell guns he made, he was charged with building and owning pistols without a permit
why would his lawyer mention in his opening statement the act of selling homemade guns?
but attempting to sell home made pistols was not one of them, if anyone has documentation of this, please post itThere were a litany of charges. Not just manufacturing without a builder permit and possession. News reports seem to only be hitting the highlights of what he was convicted of.