I'm not sure what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" anyone has a hard time understanding.

See it for what it is and move on. It’s fairly obvious that she is anti-gun. She also realizes that every step an appellee takes in the judicial process costs money. She is also well away that the higher up the ladder a person appeals the higher the cost for each subsequent step. So essentially what she’s saying is “I know I’ll eventually get overruled, but at least I can force you to spend more money in the process.”

When a judge says that the Constitution doesn’t fly in their courtroom and then makes their ruling follow that ideology, I think they should be disbarred. Right or left, I don’t discriminate on political party or affiliation. If I give “my side” a pass then it will surely come back in spades.

No saying I agree or disagree with the judge. My opinion of her should be pretty apparent to anyone who pays if only the slightest attention to what I post.


I merely commented regarding the sorry state of affairs.

I’m definitely of the opinion that a judge CANNOT nullify an amendment to the Constitution. IIRC from my HS civics class that requires passage by a supermajority in both chambers of Congress followed by ratification of a supermajority of the states.

As far a a single judge declaring a law unconstitutional that’s ultimately meaningless unless higher courts concur. The ultimate authority on the constitutionality of a law is the nine member SCOTUS. So in reality it takes at least 5 judges agreeing before a law is officially deemed unconstitutional.

Sorry for the all Caps. Computer took a chit for a few minutes.

That should be grounds for disbarring. Knowingly making a ruling that is wrong as a punishment??

The 2nd amendment wasn't written into the constitution for self protection... it was written to allow the people to overthrow a corrupt gov't. We've reached that point.

I understand this is a NY judge, and I’m not one of the lizard brained muh rights guys….that was a highly inappropriate thing for her to say.

And it wasn’t her only wrong action in this case.

Yes litigants get appeals and possibly ultimately SCOTUS. But this is how the left has waged war on all kinds of rights. That’s not even my biggest issue though it’s these actions not being discussed for what they are and what it means. We have a largely idiotic society and we have a decidedly emotional conversation ruling the public square day.

This aren’t far from a very dark direction.

Well they’re actively ignoring SCOTUS decisions already….

The correct way to deal with an inappropriate ruling, should one occur, is to appeal. That's it. If a judge f's things up in a major way, they get harshly scolded, publicly, by the appellate courts. , IMO, if they have a consistent problem getting things right (25% of trial judges don't), they should be removed from the bench by election or the relevant legislature.