Amy Swearer
20,801 followers
Sergio Mariscal 
Abdul Noormohamed 
JohnBWellsCTM 
If you want to have a discussion about whether we *should* reconsider the age of majority, cool. But as it stands, they are not some lesser level of legal adult subject to some trial-period citizenship of subject-to-your-approval rights.
They can vote. Serve on juries. Be drafted. We hold them fully responsible in criminal court. They sign legally binding contracts [including ones that put them tens of thousands of dollars in debt]. They get married and have babies without parental consent.
This is, once again, not how fundamental rights work. They are either full-fledged adults endowed with all the rights and duties of citizenship, or they are not. And since we grant them every other right and duty of citizenship without qualification...they get the unqualified 2A. twitter.com/amyklobuchar/s…
Sometimes, something is so clearly absurd that I don't feel compelled to add commentary explaining why my blood is boiling [and yours should, too]. I can just let you read it.
Here are the screenshots for the paywall.
wsj.com/articles/uvald…
I mean, the "scheme of ordered liberty" phrasing is drawn from Duncan [1968], and the "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" phrasing comes from Glucksburg [1997] in which every justice concurred. This isn't some new concept. Very basic precedent here.
Wait, do people really think Alito made up the incorporation doctrine in Mcdonald, just for the Second Amendment? Because I've got like 80+ years of legal precedent on incorporation to fill ya'll in on. twitter.com/jartasm/status…
Yes, the processes by which the armed body of people may be called up for collective defense, trained, and utilized, should be well-regulated - that is, efficient and organized. But the "right to keep and bear arms?" That belongs "to the people" and "shall not be infringed."
...including, explicitly, the right to keep and bear their private arms for individual and communal defense.
Read D.C. v Heller. Read McDonald v. Chicago. Read David Kopel's 200 page masterpiece on it.
davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/19th…
This was the clear and unqualified understanding of the Amendment at the time it was ratified, and certainly as it was at the time of the 14th Amendment, which was in significant part concerned with ensuring southern states couldn't deprive former slaves of fundamental rights...
The people may be called upon to exercise this individual right in a collective manner, and bring their privately owned arms to the organized defense of the state or nation against invasion, insurrection, or tyranny. But the right belongs to the people and shall not be infringed.
People have rights. Governments have powers. We don't look at the First Amendment and read the "right of the people to petition the government" to mean some sort of state government authority to petition the federal government, because that would be silly and we all know this.
You are not, in fact, reading the 2nd Amendment correctly. Deleting the tweet and retweeting didn't correct it. The right to keep and bear arms belongs "to the people," as individuals, which is the same understanding given to that phrase in every other part of the bill of rights. twitter.com/SundaeDivine/s…
Yes, the processes by which the armed body of people may be called up for collective defense, trained, and utilized, should be well-regulated - that is, efficient and organized. But the "right to keep and bear arms?" That belongs "to the people" and "shall not be infringed."
...including, explicitly, the right to keep and bear their private arms for individual and communal defense.
Read D.C. v Heller. Read McDonald v. Chicago. Read David Kopel's 200 page masterpiece on it.
davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/19th…
This was the clear and unqualified understanding of the Amendment at the time it was ratified, and certainly as it was at the time of the 14th Amendment, which was in significant part concerned with ensuring southern states couldn't deprive former slaves of fundamental rights...
The people may be called upon to exercise this individual right in a collective manner, and bring their privately owned arms to the organized defense of the state or nation against invasion, insurrection, or tyranny. But the right belongs to the people and shall not be infringed.
People have rights. Governments have powers. We don't look at the First Amendment and read the "right of the people to petition the government" to mean some sort of state government authority to petition the federal government, because that would be silly and we all know this.
You are not, in fact, reading the 2nd Amendment correctly. The right to keep and bear arms belongs "to the people," as individuals, which is the same understanding given to that phrase in every other part of the bill of rights. twitter.com/SundaeDivine/s…
If you listened to the testimony, you'd know that most mass public shooters aren't circumventing background checks. They, almost without exception, PASS background checks. The law doesn't address a single real aspect of mass shootings but causes major problems for everyone else. twitter.com/underoak/statu…
If you (1) invoke the gun laws of countries that lack a 2A, (2) use mass shootings to demand policies that wouldn't prevent them, or (3) start with an assumption that anyone who disagrees is pro-child murder, you aren't a serious person and I won't treat you like one today.
Twitter is once again full of deeply unserious people peddling deeply flawed "solutions" to a devastating series of recent shootings.
Go home. Hug your kids. Call your mom [she misses you]. Do a kind thing.
Love someone in real life instead of spreading hate on Twitter.
"But why would anyone need to carry in a state park?"
Because there are still other people in state parks, and they create the same threatening scenarios for which you carry a gun outside of state parks?
And also, bears. twitter.com/DailyDGU/statu…
Even the liberals on SCOTUS gave up on the argument the Second Amendment only protected arms in service during the founding when they joined the 9-0 ruling in 2016's Caetano v. Massachusetts. twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/st…
Retweeted by Amy Swearer (4) Are we just...pretending like Heller and McDonald didn't happen, and the Court didn't explain this in great detail (including in an opinion by that Arch-Originalist Scalia)? This isn't some "gotchya" that hasn't been addressed. It just exposes willful ignorance.
(3) Even under that intentionally awful characterization of originalism, the reference to handguns is silly. Both handguns and rifles existed in 1791. They certainly existed in 1868, when the 14th Amendment (the relevance of which is conveniently ignore here) was ratified.
(2) This is a childish attempt to misconstrue originalism. But moreover, the Second Amendment refers broadly to "arms," and not "firearms" or a specific subset like "muskets."
Arms. As a general concept of weaponry.
The specific arms evolve, but the right to them does not.
(1) The second sentence doesn't logically follow from the first. Neither party has asked the Court to clarify the definition of "firearm," and this has no relevance to actual question [the scope of the right to bear arms in public for self-defense].
Allow me to explain how utterly nonsensical this tweet is, despite being written by a law professor who gets paid to know better.
THREAD 🧵🧵twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/st…j3O
*I get knocked down, but I get up again* but for lawyers twitter.com/Footnote24/sta…
Justin Thomas deserves to win this, if for no other reason than being only one in contention who didn't completely implode at some point this weekend.
# 5 - April 14 (Liar Liar Road Rage on Fire)
v
# 6 - April 11 (Vegas Dog Walker)
Retweeted by Amy Swearer #4 - April 21 (Brother > Ex)
v.
#7 - April 25 (Cleveland Employee)
Retweeted by Amy Swearer We're doing it. Bracket playoff for DGU of the month. twitter.com/DailyDGU/statu…
Anyway, the idea that we don't already have laws on this that criminals are already violating and will continue to violate is absurd. It's also irrelevant to the Buffalo shooting, since the kid legally bought NY-compliant guns in NY, then illegally modified them in NY.
And if it's a handgun, you can't even do that. You have to ship it to an FFL in the buyer's state to facilitate the sale.
Friendly reminder that it's already illegal for anyone to sell guns to residents of other states without going through an FFL, who must do a background check and ensure the transfer complies with the laws of both the buyer's/seller's state. twitter.com/ExAbsurdo/stat…
"This law was useless and easily circumvented at a state level, so let's pass it at a national level so that it will be equally useless everywhere!*"
*But with millions more peaceable citizens turned into felons overnight. twitter.com/bradybuzz/stat…
The Buffalo shooter bought a New-York legal AR for this attack. He later illegally modified it. But a national "assault weapons" ban would have had no effect on this shooting. twitter.com/bradybuzz/stat…
Retweeted by Amy Swearer I could go on, but the reality is that most mass shootings happen in places where law-abiding citizens can't legally be armed. But of the minority where citizens CAN be armed? 42% have been stopped by armed civilians.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Twiends™ uses the Twitter™ API, displays it's logo & trademarks, and is not endorsed or certified by them. These items remain the property of Twitter.
We do not sell followers, we only provide display advertising. Bots & fake accounts are not permitted on twiends. © 2009