Some other cases I am more curious in exploring is how states deal with housing regulations and urban planning. I want to see more plans for making cities more accessible/walkable or improving public transportation.
This might be a stupid question, but if you are using historical context as the basis for evaluation of constitutionality of gun control, doesn’t the private right to bear arms stand in direct opposition to the Bruen standard, since it wasn’t recognized by the courts until 2008?
It was never about logical inferences. The court explicitly set aside the historical evidence that supported NY in Bruen. There were regs in at least three states about hidden pistols at the founding. And Thomas said that wasn’t persuasive because it was only 3, ya know back when it was 13????!?
It’s not a stupid question. The Strict Scrutiny podcast did a deep dive on this, but the short answer is that (1) a good-faith application of the “historical precedent” standard for firearm regulations is basically impossible to apply. There’s way too many contradictory precedents, they vary in time and place, and they’re often based on such different contexts that even figuring out what the equivalent today would be is a challenge. And (2) the majority opinion doesn’t even make sense on its own, and cherry-picks laws across US history in an ignorantly ahistorical manner. So even if it were possible to come up with a coherent and self-consistent set of principles for what firearm regulations are permissible by using a historical standard, this ruling doesn’t do that. Which has left states that want to regulate firearms scratching their heads and legislatively flailing about, because there’s no way to predict on legal principles or historical precedent what will be accepted by this SCOTUS, so instead everyone is trying to guess what they’ll allow. crooked.com/podcast/how-scotus-gutted-our-gun-laws/
The activists in SCOTUS have been ignoring the explicit text whenever it’s inconvenient. That’s how “the people’s well-regulated militia protecting a free state” gets turned into “individual persons’ unregulated right to protect individual freedom using private nukes”
@@natbarmore a good-faith application of the “historical precedent” standard for firearm regulations is basically impossible to apply. And (2) the majority opinion doesn’t even make sense on its own, and cherry-picks laws across US history in an ignorantly ahistorical manner. Based on my talks I've had with a person who believes we should follow historical precedent, this is true. They very much cherry pick information. Them: We should follow the Constitution as the Farmers intended back in 1789. Me: The Farmers will very divided on how the Constitution. Them: Let's ignore Hamilton, as he was an outlier.
It doesnt help that the media keeps labeling states "red" and "blue" by what party won that state's electoral votes in the last presidential election, esspecially in cases where the popular vote margin wasn't that much. Even when it was decisive, these terms are a misnomer. Lots of Californians voted for Trump. Lots of Texans voted for Biden. There really are no red states or blue states and we should quit using these terms for sake of stoking drama that really isn't there.
The Bruen standard is completely insane. Since when were publicly appointed officials in a government that exists to serve the common interest allowed to say they care about the common interest when making decisions?
There's nothing insane about the bruen decision, it simply states that you cannot be denied a carry permit based on subjective necessity, permits can still he denied for criminal convictions, they can require you to do training, they can require extensive background checks and permitting processes. Literally all bruen decided was that systems like new York where only the rich/famous/powerful/politically connected were unconstitutional. It changed the remaining like 3 states that weren't shall issue for permits to shall issue states. It's not radical at all, it was extremely conservative and limited in its scope and shall issue permit systems have been the norm in 90% of the country for decades. What was radical was new York's permitting system that restricted your ability to carry a firearm basically based on your social/economic class.
I love how there is zero conversation about hanging on to this money. Sure, there is a surplus... this year. Put it in a fund. Then next time there is a shortfall, you can close it without slashing items from the budget
Then if it comes down to age for people then If your not old enough to have full understanding and education on both things you’ve mentioned, then you shouldn’t be holding a gun and or changing your gender. Making an uninformed decision in each of those departments spells two different potential problems. Also your gender your born with, what you feel you identify with is obviously your perceived perspective as well you don’t come out of the womb carrying a firearm.
Have you tried not to watch it? This is supposed to be a podcast that typically is an mp3 format only for decades. You don't need to see Amelia. Why do you want to watch her just speak? What are a freak 😂
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
It used to be that state differences were quirky. Now your civil and medical rights depend on what state you live in.
Slavery/Jim Crow?
In light of these laws, we should revisit those polls on why people are moving states in the coming years.
Some other cases I am more curious in exploring is how states deal with housing regulations and urban planning.
I want to see more plans for making cities more accessible/walkable or improving public transportation.
This might be a stupid question, but if you are using historical context as the basis for evaluation of constitutionality of gun control, doesn’t the private right to bear arms stand in direct opposition to the Bruen standard, since it wasn’t recognized by the courts until 2008?
Yeah, individuals or militias?
It was never about logical inferences. The court explicitly set aside the historical evidence that supported NY in Bruen. There were regs in at least three states about hidden pistols at the founding. And Thomas said that wasn’t persuasive because it was only 3, ya know back when it was 13????!?
It’s not a stupid question. The Strict Scrutiny podcast did a deep dive on this, but the short answer is that (1) a good-faith application of the “historical precedent” standard for firearm regulations is basically impossible to apply. There’s way too many contradictory precedents, they vary in time and place, and they’re often based on such different contexts that even figuring out what the equivalent today would be is a challenge. And (2) the majority opinion doesn’t even make sense on its own, and cherry-picks laws across US history in an ignorantly ahistorical manner.
So even if it were possible to come up with a coherent and self-consistent set of principles for what firearm regulations are permissible by using a historical standard, this ruling doesn’t do that. Which has left states that want to regulate firearms scratching their heads and legislatively flailing about, because there’s no way to predict on legal principles or historical precedent what will be accepted by this SCOTUS, so instead everyone is trying to guess what they’ll allow.
crooked.com/podcast/how-scotus-gutted-our-gun-laws/
The activists in SCOTUS have been ignoring the explicit text whenever it’s inconvenient. That’s how “the people’s well-regulated militia protecting a free state” gets turned into “individual persons’ unregulated right to protect individual freedom using private nukes”
@@natbarmore a good-faith application of the “historical precedent” standard for firearm regulations is basically impossible to apply. And (2) the majority opinion doesn’t even make sense on its own, and cherry-picks laws across US history in an ignorantly ahistorical manner.
Based on my talks I've had with a person who believes we should follow historical precedent, this is true. They very much cherry pick information. Them: We should follow the Constitution as the Farmers intended back in 1789. Me: The Farmers will very divided on how the Constitution. Them: Let's ignore Hamilton, as he was an outlier.
It doesnt help that the media keeps labeling states "red" and "blue" by what party won that state's electoral votes in the last presidential election, esspecially in cases where the popular vote margin wasn't that much.
Even when it was decisive, these terms are a misnomer. Lots of Californians voted for Trump. Lots of Texans voted for Biden. There really are no red states or blue states and we should quit using these terms for sake of stoking drama that really isn't there.
I liked the bit with sound
The Bruen standard is completely insane. Since when were publicly appointed officials in a government that exists to serve the common interest allowed to say they care about the common interest when making decisions?
There's nothing insane about the bruen decision, it simply states that you cannot be denied a carry permit based on subjective necessity, permits can still he denied for criminal convictions, they can require you to do training, they can require extensive background checks and permitting processes. Literally all bruen decided was that systems like new York where only the rich/famous/powerful/politically connected were unconstitutional. It changed the remaining like 3 states that weren't shall issue for permits to shall issue states. It's not radical at all, it was extremely conservative and limited in its scope and shall issue permit systems have been the norm in 90% of the country for decades. What was radical was new York's permitting system that restricted your ability to carry a firearm basically based on your social/economic class.
I love how there is zero conversation about hanging on to this money. Sure, there is a surplus... this year. Put it in a fund. Then next time there is a shortfall, you can close it without slashing items from the budget
New York's State Scent could be the New York Pizza...but then Illinois would complain...
Based on this video, where a lot of bills are still being debated, it sounds like it’s too early to tell, and we won’t know until 2024.
The smell of a freshly broken pizza log.
Depressing
No audio please reupload
Not sure what happened, audio is fixed now
No audio
This podcast went off a cliff when Claire left.
Got no audio. Other videos do have audio, so it's on your end, not mine. Frustrating
It's a youtube thing.
If you’re old enough to hold a gun, you’re old enough to choose your gender.
Then if it comes down to age for people then If your not old enough to have full understanding and education on both things you’ve mentioned, then you shouldn’t be holding a gun and or changing your gender. Making an uninformed decision in each of those departments spells two different potential problems. Also your gender your born with, what you feel you identify with is obviously your perceived perspective as well you don’t come out of the womb carrying a firearm.
Hiiiiiiiii
I can't watch an episode with Amelia. Her voice is grating.
Have you tried not to watch it? This is supposed to be a podcast that typically is an mp3 format only for decades. You don't need to see Amelia. Why do you want to watch her just speak? What are a freak 😂
Huh. I actually focus on her content. Which is excellent by the way.