NY Judge says 2A doesn't exist there

[rjmt]

B

Wasn't the judge a black woman?

the 3rd one was
first was Asian, second was a white woman, the 3rd was the Black woman selected for political reasons

 

[Camelfilter]

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.

Merged.

 

[monkeybutler]

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.

 

[MannyGlocks]

So, the judge is a 'marxist criminal'...what else is new?

 

[Yarome]

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.

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."

 

[monkeybutler]

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."

That is a much different statement than the headline.

Right, the 'other side' as you see it is all spin, and your side is more truthful. LOL. I especially love how you try to imply that I am some agent of the left simply by questioning that which should be questioned. We'll send you some new flair for your uniform. Well done.

 

[The Heretic]

As is usual - the devil is in the details.

Thanks for the additional info.

 

[Yarome]

That is a much different statement than the headline.

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.

 

[Kcee]

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."

Inalienable Rights supersede all city laws.

That judge, regardless of how she violated his Constitutional Rights, is treasonous, and should be barred from all courtrooms immediately.

Paraphrasing her treasonous words changes nothing.

 

[MichaelH]

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.

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.

 

[monkeybutler]

What the judge effectively said is that any 2nd Amendment issue is outside the immediate question of that fellow breaking NY law, and that there is existing case law around the 2a issue. Let me know when there is a successful 2a challenge to the NY laws the guy was charged under. There won't be. All the accusations of treason and marxism don't help, they just make gun owners look like

 

[Yarome]

Let me know when there is a successful 2a challenge to the NY laws the guy was charged under. There won't be.

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!

 

[monkeybutler]

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!

Consider enrolling in the the Derek Zoolander School.

 

[rjmt]

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:
Our Legal Battle

As his legal defenders, Varghese and Associates, P.C. is challenging the constitutionality of the laws that ensnared Taylor. We argue fervently against the oppressive gun laws that conflict with the Second Amendment, asserting that Taylor's conviction is not only unfounded but a dangerous precedent that undermines the rights of all Americans.

The Appeal

We are currently preparing to appeal Taylor's conviction, armed with evidence and a robust legal strategy that underscores the futility of obtaining a firearm license in New York—a near-impossible task highlighted by our rigorous research and advocacy. We fight not just for Taylor, but for every citizen whose rights are jeopardized by overreaching regulations.

 

[rjmt]

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."

where did you get this information?
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?
Dexter never even fired these guns or carried them, he just built them and hung them on his wall
he was not convicted of selling or attempting to sell these guns, just building and possessing unlicensed pistols
in NYC you can not even own a firearm, even in your home, without a permit
in the year he was arrested, only 4% of applicants for permits received such permit, because they or their family were not deemed of good moral character

 

[rjmt]

transcripts from NY court cases can only be acquired through a NY State authorized transcription service, they are not posted on line and I could not get one for Dexter Taylor's trial directly
if anyone has such an official transcript, I would be interested to read it

Trial Transcripts | NYCOURTS.GOV

How to Obtain a Trial Transcript Trials in the Court of Claims are digitally recorded. To obtain a transcript, a litigant must first choose a transcription service from the Office of Court Administration list of approved service providers (transcription services). Upon contacting the approved...

ww2.nycourts.gov

P.S.
how many of you could qualify under NYC law to be of good moral character to qualify to own a firearm if only 4% of New Yorkers could qualify
I guess if you bribe the City official, you could get one
NYC is known for that

 

[Yarome]

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?

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.

 

[rjmt]

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.

but attempting to sell home made pistols was not one of them, if anyone has documentation of this, please post it

again, does someone have an official transcript of the trial, charges and convictions?