Thread by @ShayCormac_1

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him A law review article

Written by someone who's not an attorney.....

Who, in the first paragraph of the introduction, completely misrepresents what SCOTUS said in Heller.

let's take a look.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him In the first paragraph, he says that in Heller, SCOTUS said that certain types of 'especially powerful weapons' might be subject to regulations.

That's not what they said.

They said that DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL weapons might be.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Next, he refers to the research of historians and political scientists, all of whom make the 'militia clause' argument - which was rejected by SCOTUS in Heller.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him He then goes into the 'gun laws have always existed, therefore gun laws are Constitutional'.

In making this argument, Spitzer ignores the fact that Scalia states that not all regulations are unconstitutional. However, those regulations cannot serve to restrict the right itself.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Now, this article is where Ed gets his 1619 argument.

And, yes, it's just as much bullshit as the 1619 project.

Laws that existed in 1619, or any time prior to the DOI are irrelevant.

Furthermore, the law the article references is racist in it's application.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him it prohibited people from the Virginia colony from giving guns/ammo or any other weapons able to be used for offensive or defensive purposes to 'Indians'.

I guess this was the precursor to denying blacks the right to keep and bear arms.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him By the way, Spitzer admits that this law was, well, useless.

It did not prevent individuals from providing Indians with arms, either from the Virginia colony or others.

Even then it was clear that gun control laws did not stop 'criminals' from getting or selling guns.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Next, Spitzer makes reference to gun laws enacted between 1619 and 1934 (the useless and arguably unconstitutional national firearms act).

He, again, celebrates all of the laws, but ignores the fact that Scalia stated some regulations are Constitutional.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him The article mentions laws from the 1920's-1930's, which prohibited the owning of Semi auto firearms.

But as an attorney (snort), Ed should know that just because a law exists does not mean that said law is Constitutional.

And under current SCOTUS precedent, they aren't

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Of course, Spitzer goes on to mention laws against.....

Dueling.

I mean, really????

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Next in Spitzer's 'scholarly' article, we come to prohibitions against felons, foreigners and other 'dangerous' people.

And more references to laws from the 17th century.

it specifically mentions a 1637 law from the Mass. colony.

It's one the left would love today

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him This law required those required named individuals
who expressed “opinions & revelations” that “seduced & led into dangerous
errors many of the people” of New England to turn in all “guns, pistols, swords,
powder, shot, & match,” and it further barred them from “buying or....

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him borrowing any of the same until such time as the local court said otherwise.

Translation: if you had opinions that the gvt did not like, you could not own a gun.

That law would violate TWO amendments.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him And then there was a 1770's law from PA, which said that you could not own a gun unless you swore loyalty to the government.

(Imagine the dems saying unless you swore loyalty to the Democrats, you could not own a gun).

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Next there are references to all sorts of laws regarding hunting, minors having guns, where you could fire a gun, etc.

Basically page filler.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Now we come up on Spitzer celebrating the fact that non-citizens could not own guns, and that there were what we would consider registries. (more Constitutional issues there).

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Oh, and then we get into how some states imposed a tax on your guns - which you paid like we pay property taxes today.

(the fact that SCOTUS ruled decades ago that a tax cannot be placed on a right does not matter to Mr. Spitzer).

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him At this point My Spitzer seems to be running out of things to cry about, because he references an Oregon law that 'misquotes' the Second Amendment, which states that the right TO the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him The problem with Mr. Spitzer's 'gotcha' moment is that he's wrong.

While the Oregon statute in question (named 'An Act To Protect The Owners Of Firearms'), the use of the word TO is appropriate.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him I would simply point Mr Spitzer to the text of the 10th Amendment.

The use of the words 'of' and 'to' are effectively interchangeable, related to the legislation in question.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him He moves on to 'time and place' restrictions.

Many of which are Constitutional.

For example, the carrying of firearms in places like courthouses, etc are Constitutional.

Again, just page filler.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Next is something interesting.

he cites a 1783 CT statute that called for the death penalty for those who committed an armed robbery with a gun.

Can you imagine BLM and the 'defund the police' idiots back then

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Next, he goes to storage laws.

And, again, Mr Spitzer ignores the fact that such laws violate the Second Amendment because they serve to restrict the ability to exercise #2A rights for a lawful purpose

Self defense.

But he has to make the argument.

@moodyredhead @EdBlackEsq @secretbnuy762 @txradioguy @Tactical_review @lordthx1139 @Winning4Him Finally, he makes the dumbest comment yet.

'Gun laws are as American as gun ownership'.

And, again, Mr Spitzer wants to ingore that just because a law is enacted, it does not mean it's Constitutional.

I can list many that were found to be violations.