She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.
Honestly my heart goes out to the defendant. He could easily have been a coworker of mine, and if my coworker told me about his fun hobby making guns without any FFL, smith license, registration or permitting, in this city of all places, I would have dropped everything to talk sense into him.
He sounds like any other gun nerd, but he straight up ignored gun law in a place with famously strict and well-enforced gun laws, and with serious gusto.
I’m kind of surprised he was able to make as many guns as he did before metro police came knocking. This is Brooklyn. You will almost never see plainclothes open carry in NYC, but manufacturing pushes the case into another bracket entirely.
She’s right that states and municipalities have the right to impose their own gun laws, since 2a is federal in scope, though it would have been more accurate to say “doesn’t apply” rather than “doesn’t exist,” obviously.
It does apply. A state can create gun laws but they can't violate the 2nd amendment.
I’m no ConLaw expert, but AFAIK the doctrine remains that the Bill of Rights restricts primarily the federal government, save for 5A and 7A and using either clause to use 2A to override state gun control by all accounts remains a jurisprudential Faustian bargain no justices have yet been willing to make.
Allowed at the federal level yes, but state regs differ, and NYS gun law covers the 80% kits (S.14, S.13A).
I certainly wouldn’t pedal New York gun law as the ideal but AFAIK it’s not inconsistent re: unfinished receivers vs traditional firearms.
Edit: I forgot to summarize the local code. In short, dude needed a license, similar to the one needed to handle refrigerants or work on electrical systems. A few months turnaround but isn’t cost-prohibitive: https://thegunzone.com/how-to-become-a-gunsmith-in-ny/
Yeah poor choice of words. Like someone else said here, her thought process was most likely along the lines that the defendant’s second amendment right isn’t being challenged, as much as the state laws he broke by doing this.
EDIT: Since looking more into the details of this case that’s exactly what is happening. The defendant allegedly broke state laws doing what he did. That’s what the case is about.
I’m guessing based off that the Judge made a terrible attempt at focusing the discussion on the state laws broken vs. dwelling on the second amendment.
That’s a little accusatory. This particular judge chose their words poorly, but you can’t just apply this blanket statement to a group of people you don’t agree with without something substantial to back your claim up.
Most progressives I know are more into the idea of closing loopholes to more easily obtain guns than taking away someone’s guns or revoking their 2nd amendment right.
This just shows the gap in understanding in the political spectrum. The media has been successful at dividing us :(.