this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
121 points (98.4% liked)

Seattle

1602 readers
47 users here now

A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'd like to take, "Laws that will be overturned by Bruen v. NYSPRA precedent" for $100, Alex.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

SCOTUS would need to create new precedent, this isn't a carry ban it's a location ban.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a pretty short series of hops from Heller v. D.C. to McDonald v. Chicago to Bruen v. NYSPRA to this. If you're banning carrying at almost every place, public and private, then it's a de facto ban.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you want to argue it's a de facto ban then go right ahead. But the reality is most of the places we go are privately owned these days.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think that yes, banning firearms in certain privately owned spaces should be forbidden by law. We shouldn't be, IMO, be broadly outsourcing permissions to exercise rights to corporations, and allowing private companies to determine whether or not we have rights. We've already ceded too much power to corporations and private interests, and it's time to take it back.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I don't believe that corporations should have rights in the first place.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

I'm less worried about corporate rights and more worried about employee rights.

Its true scotus doesn't want guns in their presence.

[–] stormeuh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

But current SCOTUS will gladly use this as an excuse to establish that precedent.