Comment by agensaequivocum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by agensaequivocum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

agensaequivocum

It does take them months or years when they don't care to enforce something. Multiple times they've refused to reinstate a preliminary injection in "assault" weapon bans because it's inappropriate to get involved at a preliminary stage. Then we get a final judgment well we really need "more percolation first." But when it comes to other issues like transgender mutilation surgeries, abortion, or Trump they'll happily step in and reinstate an injection or issue one.

DC v Heller filed in 2003 supreme court decision in 2008

NYSRPA v Bruen filed 2018 decision 2022.

Miller v Bonta filed in 2018 still pending after being GVRd after bruen. Currently waiting for 521 days for another opinion from the 9th.

Young v Hawaii filed 2012 GVRd then dismissed in 2022 as Bruen answered the same issue.

Harrel v Raoul filed 2023 in 2024 the Supreme Court declined to reinstated the preliminary injunction that the Appeals court stayed. Still pending.

Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island filed in 2022. The Supreme Court declined to instate a preliminary injunction in May of 2025. Still pending.

Renna v Bonta currently at 675 days waiting for an opinion from the 9th.

Boland v Bonta currently at 675 days waiting for an opinion from the 9th.

Palmer v Lombardo currently at 781 days waiting for an opinion from the 9th.

Koons v Platkin currently at 612 days waiting for an opinion from the 3rd.

There are many more cases with the same pattern.

Courts are not the only remedy

Petition to change laws, vote, protest, write news articles, start a podcast, donate to causes or org’s you believe in, etc

Use the process and framework that is provided

> Petition to change laws

change what law, lol, it's in the constitution.

>> Petition to change laws

>change what law, lol, it's in the constitution.

To be fair, the Constitution is the law of the land.

And it can be changed. You just need 2/3 of each house of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to agree that such a change is a good idea.[0]

It's hard to do (and rightly so), but absolutely doable -- in fact, we've done it 28 times already.

[0] Meaning any such change would require broad-based support. Which is a good thing, imho.

> And it can be changed

Again, change what? Birthright citizenship has been in the constitution plain as day for 157 years.

"Petition to change laws" is a ludicrous suggestion of a remedy when it's already in the US constitution

>Again, change what? Birthright citizenship has been in the constitution plain as day for 157 years.

>"Petition to change laws" is a ludicrous suggestion of a remedy when it's already in the US constitution

And where did I say otherwise? The amendment process is what it is. Removing birthright citizenship via the amendment process is unlikely in the extreme.

As for me (An American), I think birthright citizenship is a good thing for the US.

How long it's been in the Constitution is irrelevant. It's the supreme law of the land which can only be changed via an arduous (and rightly so) process.

Petitioning "to change laws" isn't ludicrous at all. In fact, that's also enshrined in the Constitution, and for much longer than birthright citizenship.

As to whether or not one might be successful with such petitioning to modify the constitution to remove/redefine birthright citizenship is another thing altogether.

If folks want to spend their time and energy on such a likely fool's errand, they should have at it IMNSHO.

While I don't think the 14th amendment should be changed, I don't have anything to say about whether others should be allowed to advocate for such a change -- as that's the right (via the First Amendment) of all folks in the US to advocate for all kinds of stuff.

And I have just as much right to be vocal in my opposition to such changes.

As such, despite how much you might disagree (I certainly do), please don't advocate for silencing others -- because if they can be silenced, so can you, or me.

Sure there are plenty of great 2a orgs and great progress has been made in the right to carry space as more than half the states are now permitless carry when 30 years ago half the states were either may issue or no issue.

The point is the Democratic run states refuse to follow the constitution when it comes to the 2a. The courts especially the 9th twist the Supreme Court precedent and outright lie to uphold every garbage gun control law California passes. SCOTUS just doesn't care enough about the 2a to correct the blatant middle finger lower courts keep giving them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com