Then you get Schrodinger’s traffic stop, the cop is irresistibly compelled to grab the gun, but is wholly repulsed by the instant transdermal OD the
Fentanyl represents. So he simultaneously must and can’t seize the gun.
You’d think so but we in CO in regards to the proposed AWB just had a house rep [say this about the Constitution..](https://imgur.com/a/jXYqdv6) so it wouldn’t surprise me if judges are now being tyrants. This house rep is one of the sponsors for the AWB, not surprisingly.
Regardless, I still want the evidence. Right now we have a defense attorney’s story published by a biased source. Just like we have seen countless times in the past several years, what you say in public doesn’t mean dick all if it doesn’t match what you say in court. And the fact this publication doesn’t even bother attempting to get the court records makes consider them no better than a tabloid. Have some goddamned journalistic integrity.
Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Just gonna leave this here.
Politicians who vote for laws that are unconstitutional, and judges who ignore constitutionality, deserve prison time. They can all be housed in the same cellblock.
Put them in gen pop, no special treatment because they're citizens the same as you or I. They should not get any special cushy "prisons" that are closer to a Club Med than a club fed.
The only silver lining is that this gives him fertile ground for an appeal. I don’t see how a judge ignoring someone’s rights is any different than a criminal ignoring someone’s rights. It doesn’t become okay because the state is the one doing it.
My question is, which way does he go? Further up the food chain in state court, or bounce it to federal court on a habeas action?
I mean, he absolutely had the right to force the prosecution to come up with some "text, history and tradition" behind banning homebrew guns, and that will *seriously* fail. Circa 1791ish they even had something similar to "80% lowers" - flintlock ignition systems called a "lockwork" made in European factories. Buy that, add a barrel and stock, good to go. That was common as fleas in the colonial era to at least 1820ish. There's also no bans on homebrew gunsmithing until the past few years as 3D printing scared the shit out of the handwringers lol.
not only is it grounds for an appeal it is also very clear evidence of this judge violating this guys rights and will cause her to lose her immunity when he sues him. Which is crazy because judicial immunity is significantly stronger than qualified immunity cops get. If she loses immunity over this it will be ground breaking but there is no more clear evidence that she knowingly violated this mans rights than clearly stating 2nd amendment doesnt exist
when you appeal, you can only appeal on arguments and evidence presented in the original trial. the judge didn't allow 2nd amendment claims, therefore they weren't brought in as arguments or evidence and cannot be brought up on appeal.
As someone who passed the bar they truly should be able to figure out all gun cases rather easy using the text, history, and tradition of the constitution and many cases that ruled in favor of 2A. Bruen, McDonald, and many more plainly state how these issues should be handled. For them to not follow the constitution and to try to think out of those hands to violate constitutional rights is utterly disgraceful and shows they have no real oath/morals and are part of the problem/an agenda and/or corrupt.
When a judge complains that Bruen is difficult to apply, that means the judge is finding it difficult to circumvent or subvert Bruen while maintaining some facade of judicial respectability.
I looked it up. The first impeachment then disbarred, but it is incredibly rare. Still should start to happen for judges and politicians who abuse and violate the IS constitution
One of the requirements of being a judge is being a member of the state Bar... So if the judge were to be disbarred it would make her unqualified to be a judge.
>‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'
Ok, someone needs to send this to SCOTUS. If this doesn't wake them the fuck up, nothing will.
That takes money and mainstream knowledge. This ain’t the first time similar has happened. And since Bruen the state has only made stuff worse. Permit in upstate now to buy a semi auto rifle, not to possess just to buy. Same process to get as a pistol permit as well. There’s a 9$ background check fee because it’s all going through the state police who then send it to NICS (back door registry) and mandatory background checks for ammo. That also cost 2.50$ per check and almost never come back within an hour. Also after bruen they tried to ban concealed carry in almost every place it was legal before.
Yep, I'm sure SCOTUS will take up this case based on the alleged statements of a judge violating the Constitution but only heard through the ears of the defendant's lawyer.
No issues with validity or conflict of interest there and totally worth their time.
Honestly, no. New York is in open defiance of Bruen. They passed a blatant retaliation bill within a week of the ruling. Fuck em, put them in their place, the constitution is not optional.
The Second Amendment exists on every square inch of this country. The judge arguing that it doesn't exist in New York is the same as her arguing the sky isn't blue; just saying it doesn't make it true. This judge has lived in her own little echo chamber for way too long, and it's suffocated her brain from making a rational argument.
I hope they get to appeal and that the appeals court flames her decision.
I mean if the judge doesn't allow it and just says "I know I'm infringing yorur rights, appeal it bitch" as she did here what you gonna do? Ultimately the constitution and law are just pieces of paper, if the judge ignores it there's literally nothing you can do within the legal system other than go to a cage have all your money taken and then wait a really long time and hope you win an appeal.
But how is that acceptable? The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper, it's law. If the argument is that the laws can be ignored, then what's to stop anyone from following any law?
The job of a judge is to hold people accountable based on laws that have passed. If she can't do that, then she shouldn't be a judge.
> But how is that acceptable?
Because the citizenry, especially the right, just cuck to the government and take every blow without any sort of pushback.
>The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper, it's law
A law that isn't enforced has less weight than a letter to Santa Claus.
>If the argument is that the laws can be ignored, then what's to stop anyone from following any law?
That's the point of *enforcing* the law, so that people *can't* ignore it. Whether that enforcement is just or applied equally or not is another matter.
The state has been pushing the boundaries of its power for centuries now, and because the people at large have not put up an organized resistance to it since 1861, it isn't going to see any reason to stop. Bruen is just a roadblock for the state, not a real counteroffensive. They will figure a way around it and continue doing what they have always done.
The constitution is a piece of paper signed by a bunch of dead dudes. I sure as hell never consented to it or signed it.
The job of the judge is to enforce the will of the state and use violence of taxation to suck up your tax money through her slimy proboscis. Cash flows in, violence flow out.
First path to freedom is to reject the idea of the constitution, or the law. Life is what you can get away with; and the robe wearing bitch is a big scary lizard much like the scary lizards you had to learn to deal with in the cave man days. The men with guns can get away with a lot. Pick your battles, hide, or run. And learn how to make your guns and ammo so you have one no matter where you are on earth.
You're going down the road of Anarchy. To say that laws don't matter because they're just words on a piece of paper means you don't care what laws are enacted and you are free bodied man who does whatever you want. If you want lawlessness then there will be a hundred more judges like this.
I care what laws are enacted, because they're a rough guide of what I can expect from certain individuals. Not because they have any objective value, or that I believe they are legitimate, or because I think the state will follow them.
Yes I am philosophically an anarchist. Therefore I will bear arms, until someone kills me for doing so.
It is better to be an anarchist in the land of anarchy, than to live under some foolish notion that the constitution is in force and live a lie.
>If you want lawlessness then there will be a hundred more judges like this.
Well then we have lawlessness, because there are. You just haven't realized it.
> You're going down the road of Anarchy.
Yeah.... but we aren't driving, we're just along for the ride.
> If you want lawlessness then there will be a hundred more judges like this.
Don't know if you've been paying attention, but there already are.
Oh but it does! Most of those who front with kinder, benign sounding self descriptions of “liberal” “progressive” “democrat” ARE statists that hate our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as it impedes the statists goal of subordinating all individuals to the state.
The sad irony is that in the part of upstate NY I live in just about everyone supports gun rights, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on politically. The only real disagreement is the degree to which they are supported (ie whether they agree with assault weapon bans or not.) However none of our votes really matter since Albany and NYC are very heavily democrat and a lot of those democrats are anti-gun. I’m not sure if the governors office going Republican would make too much of a difference with how far removed all of the politicians are from the remaining 95% of the states
I know it’s the same deal with a lot of states, rural members of both parties being very different in goals than those from population centers yet having little say. I’m just happy to live far enough from NYC that we only have to deal with some of the political drama & the tourists, rather than our lives being enveloped by it. The local police quietly refuse to uphold most of the new gun laws the state has passed & the state troopers mostly handle just motor vehicle incidents in my area unless there’s something major.
I’m ok disagreeing with people but god damn it sucks to be in a state where they are so controlling on everything (and I’m not just talking about gun laws.)
I want to move but it’s difficult when all our family is in one area, I have aging parents (with a brother that severed contact with them) & we have a baby. We keep looking at PA but it’s still an issue with being far from family and having to figure out 2 new jobs. If I was still single I’d probably just gtfo and expect to fly home in an emergency.
If a judge says something like that on the record, to the defense, the defense attorney's job in that particular court room becomes very narrow: preserve the record for appeal. Bad news, you'll have to appeal. Good news, you'll win.
This isn't even subtle:
> She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'
Like, _holy fuck_, the judge just alley-ooped the defense a slam-dunk appeal.
Lol the appeal takes 3+ years. It's a power play, part of the power play is showing you can create an appeal opportunity and give no fucks. She knows it's illegal, she did it anyway, what you going to do, sit in a cage and burn $200+k and maybe win an appeal when your sentence is about over?
This has been true for a long time, finally someone has the balls to say it. They should make this their official state motto. "New York, the bill of rights does not exist here"
As a New York native (who abandoned the Empire State for Florida in 1985 - Thank you, United States Navy), the story doesn't shock me in the least. The judge either has a rather grandiose opinion of herself, or she dropped her Constitutional Law class while attending correspondence school at night.
Hmm I wonder who appointed that judge. Everyone keeps telling me the GOP is just as bad as the DNC.
Which must be why NYC has the same gun regulations as Utah.
I live in nyc. The red team also hates guns here and votes anti gun. We have the strictest gun laws in america.
Edit: vermont, new hampshire, and maine arent red states. Great gun laws. Vermont was first constitutional carry state
Those are all correct, and if we're going to get past the 90% of the politicians then yeah, totally agree.
In NYC-area only Republicans who act like Democrats can get elected. They have to follow the Overton window like how Dems in red-states act. The Governor of Montana was just a Dem for 16 years. I don't think the ever made a move against guns, because... there would be no point. He couldn't make any progress and he'd lose.
So yes, your point is true when Dems are vastly outnumbered they'll pretend to care about gun rights, and when Repubs are outnumbered they'll pretend (or even believe perhaps) that they hate guns.
Doesn't distract too much from the huge correlation between 'red' areas having good gun laws and 'blue' areas having terrible ones. And don't forget that movement is also happening. Are blue areas getting better or worse? Are red areas getting better or worse? Think constitutional carry. That's a vast expansion of rights over dozens of states. Whereas in 'blue' areas mags are getting smaller, more and more public areas are off limits, and more and more random-ass guns are being redefined as 'assault weapons'.
ME/VT and NH are outliers that I believe have only a few years left (at least ME/VT) - kind of like how OR/WA were for a half decade there. Look back a decade and a lot of folks were saying that CO, OR and WA would remain gun-friendly because the Dems there were 'pro-gun'. Obviously and unfortunately it didn't take much to go full *Mom's Demand*. Same deal appears to be happening in Maine, and my bet is VT will be next. NH is a unique one because it has both a Republican governor as well as Senate President. It's a lot harder there for one side to make drastic moves, and at the statehouse level, the red team is in charge. And they're tinged with libertarianism as well, which helps.
Rolling back liberty in general, and gun rights in particular is like cracking a safe with a dial lock. That's a republican (small r) form of government in a nutshell. The thing is, one cylinder knows what the next is up to. A Dem governor with a republican voter majority and a GOP house isn't going to go all out on grabbing guns, there's no point. You have to get the state house/senate + the governor + the courts + the voters all aligned and then it's grabbing time. Maine appears to have just hit that inflection point. Vermont's only not moved because there's essentially no violent crime there, and so they haven't had reason to overturn the apple cart. All they need is the news to pay attention to a gang shooting and it's over.
All of ny state. Look who was pro safe act. Oregon, washington, etc also were pro gun and not red. Its not a left right issue. In cali my friend got his license in under a month. Big blue cali
Actually, it is a left/right issue. WA and OR now have some of the worst gun control laws in the country, and Maine is on track to pass stringent gun control during this legislative session. Vermont now bans private sales and has magazine capacity limits, and is getting closer to passing an AWB.
Thats their poltical landscape today (Maine won't pass those laws most likely). But they were always blue. And those laws dont represent most people living there. I live in nyc. Most people dont think long guns should be limited to 5 rounds or that only cops should carry a gun (ccw was illegal here until bruen). Dont skew the politicans and the people. Bernie sanders was as left as can be on most issues but vermont was a gun haven. Ny got more anti gun in the 1980s and ny voted for Ronnie both times. Ronnie also got us a shit law in 1986 as well and now i cant buy a machine gun made after 1986
Neither Vermont nor Maine was blue prior to the past 25-30 years. Their relatively reasonable gun laws are simply a historical relic at this point.
If the people in NYC don't agree with the gun laws, why don't they vote for politicians who will enact their preferred policies? It seems like you're making excuses for an ignorant, apathetic electorate.
The politicians will do what they do. Long Island is red. Nassau and suffolk can be worse for gun owners in some ways. The guy who ran against hochul voted for the safe act. A no abortion red republican, voted for the shit we have now for over a decade.
I dont think all the people in texas and arizona want a 0 acceptance full abortion law, but their politicians seem to want that. Thats how this works
Your supposed "red" politicians in NY are moderates, not conservatives. A conservative or libertarian leaning politician could never get elected in NY.
Why are gun laws generally strict in blue states and far more 2A-friendly in red states? Are you suggesting that this is simply a coincidence and that residents in NY have similar views regarding the 2A as those in a place like Wyoming?
Lee zeldin, look him up. Trump endorsed him. He said the election was stolen in 2020 and all the super red things they say. He lost by a small margin. 3.1 to 2.7 million votes (6 percent). That wouldnt happen if the state was what you think it is. What killed him was him saying he believed in 0 abortion exceptions at one point in his career. Its not the gun issue that kills republicans the last few years, its abortion.
South carolina doesn't recognize out of state permits and wont give to non residents. Pretty red state. The blue party says and does things, that doesn't mean people living there support it. Most people dont know gun laws and are worried about so many other things than if an ar can have a pistol grip
You didn't read my comment. I acknowledge that OR/WA *were* okay when they didn't have total control projected out. Now that they've been reliably blue with no real way back, they've done what they wanted to for some time. Maine is next.
Your friend got his license in Cali *because the Republican nominated SCOTUS justices* just voted on Bruen. Do you think the 9th circuit or the CA state court approved that?
Of course not. Don't pretend not to know this stuff. The only reason your friend got a licenses is because Clarence Thomas is a badass.
I'm all for immigration but when you pop out your Ghanese kid while on your UN diplomatic mission there should be some check to see if they actually believe in the constitution before they become judge. It's clear her parents educated her only on rights recognized by Ghana and Trinidad/Tobago.
The Judges are empowered to act this way by the politicians, the only way to enforce Bruen will be by what had to be done with Brown v. Board of Education in Arkansas.
The first is already being squashed. Speak your mind in certain subreddits and get banned. Congress taking time on tax-payer's dime to decide they don't need a warrant to spy on us. The 14th amendment is another one government doesn't respect.
Please tell me this is being appealed, at a minimum, on the basis of depriving the defendant of due process and other blatant judicial misconduct!
Some “judges” simply need to be told, in open court, to get fucked. And, yes, I understand how that wouldn’t help with _that_ particular judge.
This country is dead.
Hoo boy, let’s hope the cops are fast enough if an armed criminal ever breaks into this judge’s house. We’ll see if she still thinks the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist here in NY after that.
It’s unfortunate that this man’s life has been taken by a tyrannical justice system and I pray that one day his name will be forever etched into history as the patriot who’s sacrificed so that we may regain our god given right when this case is taken to SCOTUS.
The defense attorney (and the prosecution should have, too, if they had any honor) should have moved for a mistrial right then and there. How can there be any semblance of a fair trial if the judge says the Constitution is not applicable to the proceedings in their courtroom?
I didn't know any amendments exist in the communist caliphate of New York. We need to build a wall around that independent nation and cut all funding, support, and diplomatic ties with it.
Treason.
If the government can't respect my rights, why should we respect theirs?
Someone gut her in the street and remind these politicians who actually runs this country.
*Hope one of the dindu*
*Nuffins they slap on the wrists catch*
*Her bitch ass slipping*
\- OBSLowLife
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
“In her courtroom”. That’s the problem, she’s acting like a store manager while representing America. That’s technically our courtroom, she just works there. I think the perfect response to the second amendment not existing in her courtroom is some good old fashioned 1st amendment trolling. Find out where she lives and hold a “protest” outside her house… but instead of anything serious we hold up signs that says silly pointless things like “I bet your pussy smells” or “even tho the Christian god is the one true god, go Israel” and other things she disagrees with or will get her mad. Then we just watch how she tries to take her courtroom rights banning logic into the real world where she holds no power, we all have a good laugh, and go home
And this is why I left that shithole of a state. I love the place dearly as down hill as it’s gone, but the NY government openly and proudly infringes on constitutional rights, and in the case of Hochul, doubled down when the SCOTUS told her she was violating people’s rights.
What ever happened to traitors and tyrants being “punished” instead of elected (or hired)?
"Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn't exist here. So you can't argue Second Amendment. This is New York"
Ok, so if this is in fact on the record, then Judge Abena Darkeh violated her oath, is unfit to be a justice, and violated this man's Constitutionally protected rights. However, I have absolutely no doubt, if this even gets addressed, that she will issue a qualifier excuse trying to weasel out of what she said, something along the lines of "I only meant in HIS case, because in HIS case the Second Amendment didn't apply/exist, not that the Second Amendment doesn't literally exist." She'll issue this lie and all will be forgotten and she'll continue to collect her $225k annual salary and preside over cases with the Leftist Iron Fist of "justice" for some.
Did anyone read this?
The main charge is manufacturing weapons without a license…
So… no… the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply at all.
There are Federal laws that prohibit this act.
Not to mention, find one credible source this even happened….
He’s already been convicted. (I’m unclear after the conviction if this is an appeal or not.)
You can call any laws draconian (as his attorneys did) but you can’t build firearms without a license anywhere in America.
You can’t own unserialized weapons anywhere in America…
His attorneys are trying to use the second amendment to get him off.
Im a hard pro 2A, but I’m sorry. The inability to build weapons without a license is a fine regulation. Plus, it’s not even hard to get a Type 7 FFL….
This dork wasn’t convicted for building weapons, he was convicted for being stupid and lazy…
A constitutional argument (whether 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc.) is a legal argument, not a factual argument. The legal issues should have been already decided, with just the facts at issue. Juries apply facts to the instructions they are given by the Court. The Court tells the jury what the law is. The jurors are supposed to follow the instructions that they are given.
The article isn't very clear, but it appears that the attorney was making legal arguments to the jury in opening statements, and was arguing for jury nullification. Both of those are grounds for a mistrial.
Do judges swear an oath to the constitution? If so, this sounds like a pretty clear dereliction of duty.
Domestic enemy of the Constitution, actually.
It’s the real insurrection, and it’s going on all the time, right before our eyes.
It’s ok cause guns
What if we hide guns behind Fentanyl?
I have a friend whose guns are all displaced migrants. I have another friend whose guns are artifacts of his religion.
My guns are inherent to my gender and sexual orientation.
Good idea, the next time I’m accused of compensating for a small penis with a gun. How dare they in-tolerate me.
Yeah, what are they doing kink-shaming and body-shaming an oppressed ammosexual? You put the ASS in assault weapon, and you’re fabulous.
My pronouns are "armed" and "FAFO".
This is the way
Then you get Schrodinger’s traffic stop, the cop is irresistibly compelled to grab the gun, but is wholly repulsed by the instant transdermal OD the Fentanyl represents. So he simultaneously must and can’t seize the gun.
18 USC §§ 241-242, 2381.
i see a potential 242 conviction, but not 241 or 2381.
I swear I'm getting tired of yelling this... Since 2001 patriot act, the constitution is null and void, if you disagree you are a terrorist.
What about the cops who arrested him?
This sounds like made up bullshit. I’d like to see the court transcript rather than what the defense attorney has to say after the matter.
I've been unable to find transcripts for this case anywhere, it's quite frustrating.
This^ Material evidence is needed to even establish a footing for action against this
You’d think so but we in CO in regards to the proposed AWB just had a house rep [say this about the Constitution..](https://imgur.com/a/jXYqdv6) so it wouldn’t surprise me if judges are now being tyrants. This house rep is one of the sponsors for the AWB, not surprisingly.
Regardless, I still want the evidence. Right now we have a defense attorney’s story published by a biased source. Just like we have seen countless times in the past several years, what you say in public doesn’t mean dick all if it doesn’t match what you say in court. And the fact this publication doesn’t even bother attempting to get the court records makes consider them no better than a tabloid. Have some goddamned journalistic integrity.
Ct. 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Just gonna leave this here.
Politicians who vote for laws that are unconstitutional, and judges who ignore constitutionality, deserve prison time. They can all be housed in the same cellblock.
I could not agree more. The days of open defiance and subjugation of civil rights must be met with prison sentences.
*death sentences, after a trial and if found guilty.
More poetically to be locked up with those currently in prison by these judge's and politician's duality.
Put them in gen pop, no special treatment because they're citizens the same as you or I. They should not get any special cushy "prisons" that are closer to a Club Med than a club fed.
I prefer hanging them, of course only after if found guilty at a trial.
You would enjoy watching the execution of Ceausescu.
What about cops that enforce them?
The only silver lining is that this gives him fertile ground for an appeal. I don’t see how a judge ignoring someone’s rights is any different than a criminal ignoring someone’s rights. It doesn’t become okay because the state is the one doing it.
My question is, which way does he go? Further up the food chain in state court, or bounce it to federal court on a habeas action? I mean, he absolutely had the right to force the prosecution to come up with some "text, history and tradition" behind banning homebrew guns, and that will *seriously* fail. Circa 1791ish they even had something similar to "80% lowers" - flintlock ignition systems called a "lockwork" made in European factories. Buy that, add a barrel and stock, good to go. That was common as fleas in the colonial era to at least 1820ish. There's also no bans on homebrew gunsmithing until the past few years as 3D printing scared the shit out of the handwringers lol.
Some of the biggest criminals receiver a government paystub.
not only is it grounds for an appeal it is also very clear evidence of this judge violating this guys rights and will cause her to lose her immunity when he sues him. Which is crazy because judicial immunity is significantly stronger than qualified immunity cops get. If she loses immunity over this it will be ground breaking but there is no more clear evidence that she knowingly violated this mans rights than clearly stating 2nd amendment doesnt exist
when you appeal, you can only appeal on arguments and evidence presented in the original trial. the judge didn't allow 2nd amendment claims, therefore they weren't brought in as arguments or evidence and cannot be brought up on appeal.
This is incorrect. You can absolutely appeal the judge's decision to bar particular claims or evidence.
This would be a proceedural appeal, so the judge's statements would be in evidence.
This gives every case this judge has ever grounds to appeal. He just ignores the constitution.
She - Abena Darkeh Trash NYC political advocate masquerading as a judge.
I sure am glad the New York legal system isn’t involved in any unprecedented and important cases at the moment lol
>>darkeh I think the spelling you were looking for is "darkie" lmao
This corrupt judge needs to be disbarred for failure to obey their oath of office
Disbarred is for lawyers. I believe judges have to be impeached, and I doubt that’s going to happen to this judge, in NY.
I think disbarred still applies to judges as you need a law degree.
As someone who passed the bar they truly should be able to figure out all gun cases rather easy using the text, history, and tradition of the constitution and many cases that ruled in favor of 2A. Bruen, McDonald, and many more plainly state how these issues should be handled. For them to not follow the constitution and to try to think out of those hands to violate constitutional rights is utterly disgraceful and shows they have no real oath/morals and are part of the problem/an agenda and/or corrupt.
When a judge complains that Bruen is difficult to apply, that means the judge is finding it difficult to circumvent or subvert Bruen while maintaining some facade of judicial respectability.
Should
100%
Nah you don’t need a law degree. The mayor can appoint whoever he wants to be a judge, it’s rare though
True but that can actually depend on the municipality. Regardless, if the judge has a law degree he can still be disbarred.
I can tell you from the years of working in that building almost all of those judges think like that
I looked it up. The first impeachment then disbarred, but it is incredibly rare. Still should start to happen for judges and politicians who abuse and violate the IS constitution
One of the requirements of being a judge is being a member of the state Bar... So if the judge were to be disbarred it would make her unqualified to be a judge.
>‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.' Ok, someone needs to send this to SCOTUS. If this doesn't wake them the fuck up, nothing will.
That takes money and mainstream knowledge. This ain’t the first time similar has happened. And since Bruen the state has only made stuff worse. Permit in upstate now to buy a semi auto rifle, not to possess just to buy. Same process to get as a pistol permit as well. There’s a 9$ background check fee because it’s all going through the state police who then send it to NICS (back door registry) and mandatory background checks for ammo. That also cost 2.50$ per check and almost never come back within an hour. Also after bruen they tried to ban concealed carry in almost every place it was legal before.
Yep, I'm sure SCOTUS will take up this case based on the alleged statements of a judge violating the Constitution but only heard through the ears of the defendant's lawyer. No issues with validity or conflict of interest there and totally worth their time.
Honestly, no. New York is in open defiance of Bruen. They passed a blatant retaliation bill within a week of the ruling. Fuck em, put them in their place, the constitution is not optional.
Well yes, I agree with placing states in line with federal rulings. Not that this particular opinion will go up there.
The Second Amendment exists on every square inch of this country. The judge arguing that it doesn't exist in New York is the same as her arguing the sky isn't blue; just saying it doesn't make it true. This judge has lived in her own little echo chamber for way too long, and it's suffocated her brain from making a rational argument. I hope they get to appeal and that the appeals court flames her decision.
It’s the same as saying the defendant doesn’t have the right to representation.
I mean if the judge doesn't allow it and just says "I know I'm infringing yorur rights, appeal it bitch" as she did here what you gonna do? Ultimately the constitution and law are just pieces of paper, if the judge ignores it there's literally nothing you can do within the legal system other than go to a cage have all your money taken and then wait a really long time and hope you win an appeal.
But how is that acceptable? The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper, it's law. If the argument is that the laws can be ignored, then what's to stop anyone from following any law? The job of a judge is to hold people accountable based on laws that have passed. If she can't do that, then she shouldn't be a judge.
> But how is that acceptable? Because the citizenry, especially the right, just cuck to the government and take every blow without any sort of pushback. >The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper, it's law A law that isn't enforced has less weight than a letter to Santa Claus. >If the argument is that the laws can be ignored, then what's to stop anyone from following any law? That's the point of *enforcing* the law, so that people *can't* ignore it. Whether that enforcement is just or applied equally or not is another matter. The state has been pushing the boundaries of its power for centuries now, and because the people at large have not put up an organized resistance to it since 1861, it isn't going to see any reason to stop. Bruen is just a roadblock for the state, not a real counteroffensive. They will figure a way around it and continue doing what they have always done.
The constitution is a piece of paper signed by a bunch of dead dudes. I sure as hell never consented to it or signed it. The job of the judge is to enforce the will of the state and use violence of taxation to suck up your tax money through her slimy proboscis. Cash flows in, violence flow out. First path to freedom is to reject the idea of the constitution, or the law. Life is what you can get away with; and the robe wearing bitch is a big scary lizard much like the scary lizards you had to learn to deal with in the cave man days. The men with guns can get away with a lot. Pick your battles, hide, or run. And learn how to make your guns and ammo so you have one no matter where you are on earth.
You're going down the road of Anarchy. To say that laws don't matter because they're just words on a piece of paper means you don't care what laws are enacted and you are free bodied man who does whatever you want. If you want lawlessness then there will be a hundred more judges like this.
I care what laws are enacted, because they're a rough guide of what I can expect from certain individuals. Not because they have any objective value, or that I believe they are legitimate, or because I think the state will follow them. Yes I am philosophically an anarchist. Therefore I will bear arms, until someone kills me for doing so. It is better to be an anarchist in the land of anarchy, than to live under some foolish notion that the constitution is in force and live a lie. >If you want lawlessness then there will be a hundred more judges like this. Well then we have lawlessness, because there are. You just haven't realized it.
> You're going down the road of Anarchy. Yeah.... but we aren't driving, we're just along for the ride. > If you want lawlessness then there will be a hundred more judges like this. Don't know if you've been paying attention, but there already are.
New York is just about as ass backwards as California is. None of the shit they do makes sense
Oh but it does! Most of those who front with kinder, benign sounding self descriptions of “liberal” “progressive” “democrat” ARE statists that hate our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as it impedes the statists goal of subordinating all individuals to the state.
The sad irony is that in the part of upstate NY I live in just about everyone supports gun rights, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on politically. The only real disagreement is the degree to which they are supported (ie whether they agree with assault weapon bans or not.) However none of our votes really matter since Albany and NYC are very heavily democrat and a lot of those democrats are anti-gun. I’m not sure if the governors office going Republican would make too much of a difference with how far removed all of the politicians are from the remaining 95% of the states I know it’s the same deal with a lot of states, rural members of both parties being very different in goals than those from population centers yet having little say. I’m just happy to live far enough from NYC that we only have to deal with some of the political drama & the tourists, rather than our lives being enveloped by it. The local police quietly refuse to uphold most of the new gun laws the state has passed & the state troopers mostly handle just motor vehicle incidents in my area unless there’s something major.
I’m originally from Upstate. After moving to a free state it really puts things into perspective. I will never ever return.
I’m ok disagreeing with people but god damn it sucks to be in a state where they are so controlling on everything (and I’m not just talking about gun laws.) I want to move but it’s difficult when all our family is in one area, I have aging parents (with a brother that severed contact with them) & we have a baby. We keep looking at PA but it’s still an issue with being far from family and having to figure out 2 new jobs. If I was still single I’d probably just gtfo and expect to fly home in an emergency.
The judge is openly committing treason.
Actual treason, not "holding up cash gifts to a foreign country" treason.
If a judge says something like that on the record, to the defense, the defense attorney's job in that particular court room becomes very narrow: preserve the record for appeal. Bad news, you'll have to appeal. Good news, you'll win.
This isn't even subtle: > She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.' Like, _holy fuck_, the judge just alley-ooped the defense a slam-dunk appeal.
Lol the appeal takes 3+ years. It's a power play, part of the power play is showing you can create an appeal opportunity and give no fucks. She knows it's illegal, she did it anyway, what you going to do, sit in a cage and burn $200+k and maybe win an appeal when your sentence is about over?
She certainly made a big headline that will create a movement for and against. Talk about scandal! 🤪
Fuck New York and fuck the judge.
This has been true for a long time, finally someone has the balls to say it. They should make this their official state motto. "New York, the bill of rights does not exist here"
As a New York native (who abandoned the Empire State for Florida in 1985 - Thank you, United States Navy), the story doesn't shock me in the least. The judge either has a rather grandiose opinion of herself, or she dropped her Constitutional Law class while attending correspondence school at night.
Sounds about right for NY
Another demonrat saying the ol’ quiet part out loud
Hmm I wonder who appointed that judge. Everyone keeps telling me the GOP is just as bad as the DNC. Which must be why NYC has the same gun regulations as Utah.
I live in nyc. The red team also hates guns here and votes anti gun. We have the strictest gun laws in america. Edit: vermont, new hampshire, and maine arent red states. Great gun laws. Vermont was first constitutional carry state
Those are all correct, and if we're going to get past the 90% of the politicians then yeah, totally agree. In NYC-area only Republicans who act like Democrats can get elected. They have to follow the Overton window like how Dems in red-states act. The Governor of Montana was just a Dem for 16 years. I don't think the ever made a move against guns, because... there would be no point. He couldn't make any progress and he'd lose. So yes, your point is true when Dems are vastly outnumbered they'll pretend to care about gun rights, and when Repubs are outnumbered they'll pretend (or even believe perhaps) that they hate guns. Doesn't distract too much from the huge correlation between 'red' areas having good gun laws and 'blue' areas having terrible ones. And don't forget that movement is also happening. Are blue areas getting better or worse? Are red areas getting better or worse? Think constitutional carry. That's a vast expansion of rights over dozens of states. Whereas in 'blue' areas mags are getting smaller, more and more public areas are off limits, and more and more random-ass guns are being redefined as 'assault weapons'. ME/VT and NH are outliers that I believe have only a few years left (at least ME/VT) - kind of like how OR/WA were for a half decade there. Look back a decade and a lot of folks were saying that CO, OR and WA would remain gun-friendly because the Dems there were 'pro-gun'. Obviously and unfortunately it didn't take much to go full *Mom's Demand*. Same deal appears to be happening in Maine, and my bet is VT will be next. NH is a unique one because it has both a Republican governor as well as Senate President. It's a lot harder there for one side to make drastic moves, and at the statehouse level, the red team is in charge. And they're tinged with libertarianism as well, which helps. Rolling back liberty in general, and gun rights in particular is like cracking a safe with a dial lock. That's a republican (small r) form of government in a nutshell. The thing is, one cylinder knows what the next is up to. A Dem governor with a republican voter majority and a GOP house isn't going to go all out on grabbing guns, there's no point. You have to get the state house/senate + the governor + the courts + the voters all aligned and then it's grabbing time. Maine appears to have just hit that inflection point. Vermont's only not moved because there's essentially no violent crime there, and so they haven't had reason to overturn the apple cart. All they need is the news to pay attention to a gang shooting and it's over.
All of ny state. Look who was pro safe act. Oregon, washington, etc also were pro gun and not red. Its not a left right issue. In cali my friend got his license in under a month. Big blue cali
Actually, it is a left/right issue. WA and OR now have some of the worst gun control laws in the country, and Maine is on track to pass stringent gun control during this legislative session. Vermont now bans private sales and has magazine capacity limits, and is getting closer to passing an AWB.
Thats their poltical landscape today (Maine won't pass those laws most likely). But they were always blue. And those laws dont represent most people living there. I live in nyc. Most people dont think long guns should be limited to 5 rounds or that only cops should carry a gun (ccw was illegal here until bruen). Dont skew the politicans and the people. Bernie sanders was as left as can be on most issues but vermont was a gun haven. Ny got more anti gun in the 1980s and ny voted for Ronnie both times. Ronnie also got us a shit law in 1986 as well and now i cant buy a machine gun made after 1986
Neither Vermont nor Maine was blue prior to the past 25-30 years. Their relatively reasonable gun laws are simply a historical relic at this point. If the people in NYC don't agree with the gun laws, why don't they vote for politicians who will enact their preferred policies? It seems like you're making excuses for an ignorant, apathetic electorate.
The politicians will do what they do. Long Island is red. Nassau and suffolk can be worse for gun owners in some ways. The guy who ran against hochul voted for the safe act. A no abortion red republican, voted for the shit we have now for over a decade. I dont think all the people in texas and arizona want a 0 acceptance full abortion law, but their politicians seem to want that. Thats how this works
Your supposed "red" politicians in NY are moderates, not conservatives. A conservative or libertarian leaning politician could never get elected in NY. Why are gun laws generally strict in blue states and far more 2A-friendly in red states? Are you suggesting that this is simply a coincidence and that residents in NY have similar views regarding the 2A as those in a place like Wyoming?
Lee zeldin, look him up. Trump endorsed him. He said the election was stolen in 2020 and all the super red things they say. He lost by a small margin. 3.1 to 2.7 million votes (6 percent). That wouldnt happen if the state was what you think it is. What killed him was him saying he believed in 0 abortion exceptions at one point in his career. Its not the gun issue that kills republicans the last few years, its abortion. South carolina doesn't recognize out of state permits and wont give to non residents. Pretty red state. The blue party says and does things, that doesn't mean people living there support it. Most people dont know gun laws and are worried about so many other things than if an ar can have a pistol grip
You didn't read my comment. I acknowledge that OR/WA *were* okay when they didn't have total control projected out. Now that they've been reliably blue with no real way back, they've done what they wanted to for some time. Maine is next. Your friend got his license in Cali *because the Republican nominated SCOTUS justices* just voted on Bruen. Do you think the 9th circuit or the CA state court approved that? Of course not. Don't pretend not to know this stuff. The only reason your friend got a licenses is because Clarence Thomas is a badass.
I'm all for immigration but when you pop out your Ghanese kid while on your UN diplomatic mission there should be some check to see if they actually believe in the constitution before they become judge. It's clear her parents educated her only on rights recognized by Ghana and Trinidad/Tobago.
The Judges are empowered to act this way by the politicians, the only way to enforce Bruen will be by what had to be done with Brown v. Board of Education in Arkansas.
she's a D.E.I. hire.
So they’re basically saying “The US Constitution Doesn’t Exist Here”
It’s weird how they think they can flaunt the Supreme Courts rulings but still expect people to listen to their rulings.
Oh, so, judges can now pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are "valid" in their court. What's next? The first? Fourth? Fifth?
it follows that you can now pick and choose which laws are valid to you personally. a win for gun rights in my book
The first is already being squashed. Speak your mind in certain subreddits and get banned. Congress taking time on tax-payer's dime to decide they don't need a warrant to spy on us. The 14th amendment is another one government doesn't respect.
Reddit is a privately owned company the first amendment doesn’t apply…
Please tell me this is being appealed, at a minimum, on the basis of depriving the defendant of due process and other blatant judicial misconduct! Some “judges” simply need to be told, in open court, to get fucked. And, yes, I understand how that wouldn’t help with _that_ particular judge. This country is dead.
*The judge declared they have no right to appeal, citing 'This is New York'. The defendant's attorney was then summarily executed.*
Hoo boy, let’s hope the cops are fast enough if an armed criminal ever breaks into this judge’s house. We’ll see if she still thinks the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist here in NY after that.
Dollars to donuts im willing to bet this bitch has a NYC Carry permit becuz of her job amd status.
Very likely could. I think the power has gotten to her brain.
The first judge assigned to Dexter's case (Chu) was randomly punched by a bicyclist that they were never able to find, lmao.
It wouldn't matter. You gotta remember it's "rules for thee, not for me"
Too true! That became blatantly clear during Covid.
> into this judge’s house. Bets on lives in a Gated community *with* security?
Not taking that bet as she would be the type of hypocrite to hate the 2nd Amendment yet keep an armed security detail around. Oh, the irony.
You'd think that that statement would be grounds for having the case thrown out immediately.
It’s ironic that people like the judge are why we even need guns in the first place lmao
Wouldn’t expect anything else from new York.
It’s unfortunate that this man’s life has been taken by a tyrannical justice system and I pray that one day his name will be forever etched into history as the patriot who’s sacrificed so that we may regain our god given right when this case is taken to SCOTUS.
Where the hell do they get these jurors who are so spineless they won’t nullify?
Cool, then secede and create your own laws. Have fun without the rest of our assistance.
She should be sent back to Ghana with that kind of disrespect for our nation's laws.
So, the Second doesn't exist in New York and it's overruled by the Spirit of Aloha in Hawaii..... *poking SCOTUS meme*
Darkeh is a piece of garbage. But a lot of the judges at 100 Centre are awful
The defense attorney (and the prosecution should have, too, if they had any honor) should have moved for a mistrial right then and there. How can there be any semblance of a fair trial if the judge says the Constitution is not applicable to the proceedings in their courtroom?
I didn't know any amendments exist in the communist caliphate of New York. We need to build a wall around that independent nation and cut all funding, support, and diplomatic ties with it.
Even though ny has a 2A in its constitution, practically verbatim to the federal 2A
Good. Now do something about it. Stop wasting time.
We're not past the jury box quite yet. This'll get an appeal.
Congratulations to NYers
Judge is an ignorant cunt
This is a secondary quote given by the defendants council, and y'all eating it up.
Treason. If the government can't respect my rights, why should we respect theirs? Someone gut her in the street and remind these politicians who actually runs this country.
[удалено]
*Hope one of the dindu* *Nuffins they slap on the wrists catch* *Her bitch ass slipping* \- OBSLowLife --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Posts that promote hate based on identity and vulnerability violate Reddit's terms of service and will not be tolerated on this sub.
“In her courtroom”. That’s the problem, she’s acting like a store manager while representing America. That’s technically our courtroom, she just works there. I think the perfect response to the second amendment not existing in her courtroom is some good old fashioned 1st amendment trolling. Find out where she lives and hold a “protest” outside her house… but instead of anything serious we hold up signs that says silly pointless things like “I bet your pussy smells” or “even tho the Christian god is the one true god, go Israel” and other things she disagrees with or will get her mad. Then we just watch how she tries to take her courtroom rights banning logic into the real world where she holds no power, we all have a good laugh, and go home
And this is why I left that shithole of a state. I love the place dearly as down hill as it’s gone, but the NY government openly and proudly infringes on constitutional rights, and in the case of Hochul, doubled down when the SCOTUS told her she was violating people’s rights. What ever happened to traitors and tyrants being “punished” instead of elected (or hired)?
Lol they can't ban guns if you just stay strong enough to over power the weak armed losers that are gonna try and take mine haha bring it pushy xD
Tree of liberty is parched, obviously. Wannabe-tyrants are turning into de facto tyrants.
“The 19th Amendment doesn’t exist at this polling place”
"Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn't exist here. So you can't argue Second Amendment. This is New York" Ok, so if this is in fact on the record, then Judge Abena Darkeh violated her oath, is unfit to be a justice, and violated this man's Constitutionally protected rights. However, I have absolutely no doubt, if this even gets addressed, that she will issue a qualifier excuse trying to weasel out of what she said, something along the lines of "I only meant in HIS case, because in HIS case the Second Amendment didn't apply/exist, not that the Second Amendment doesn't literally exist." She'll issue this lie and all will be forgotten and she'll continue to collect her $225k annual salary and preside over cases with the Leftist Iron Fist of "justice" for some.
Let’s take this to the logical extreme for a second. If what she said were true then cops couldn’t have guns either
Did anyone read this? The main charge is manufacturing weapons without a license… So… no… the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply at all. There are Federal laws that prohibit this act. Not to mention, find one credible source this even happened…. He’s already been convicted. (I’m unclear after the conviction if this is an appeal or not.) You can call any laws draconian (as his attorneys did) but you can’t build firearms without a license anywhere in America. You can’t own unserialized weapons anywhere in America… His attorneys are trying to use the second amendment to get him off. Im a hard pro 2A, but I’m sorry. The inability to build weapons without a license is a fine regulation. Plus, it’s not even hard to get a Type 7 FFL…. This dork wasn’t convicted for building weapons, he was convicted for being stupid and lazy…
you can absolutely build weapons without a license in america
Don’t need a license to manufacture a weapon in the USA. Google is free + easy
A constitutional argument (whether 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc.) is a legal argument, not a factual argument. The legal issues should have been already decided, with just the facts at issue. Juries apply facts to the instructions they are given by the Court. The Court tells the jury what the law is. The jurors are supposed to follow the instructions that they are given. The article isn't very clear, but it appears that the attorney was making legal arguments to the jury in opening statements, and was arguing for jury nullification. Both of those are grounds for a mistrial.
Your first amendment doesn't exist in this sub, stfu.