Article Image

IPFS News Link • Gun Rights

NY Judge Claims '2nd Amendment Doesn't Exist In Her Courtroom' In Case Against Gunsmith

•, by Tyler Durden

Taylor researched ATF rules regarding the building of firearms and wanted to follow them carefully.  Sadly, however, the state of New York has its own laws which leftist governments believe supersede federal law and the Constitution.  

Because Taylor was apparently not officially licensed as a gunsmith in NY, authorities decided to raid his home and arrest him for possession of gun parts (including 80% lowers) which are legal federally but require a smithing certificate in the state (a legal gray area which is being contested).  Taylor was easy to find because he purchased all the parts with his own credit cards thinking he was protected under ATF rules.

ATF rules state that the building of guns for personal use including 80% lowers and related parts is legal as long as the person does not build those weapons to sell. 

Taylor's lawyer, Vinoo Varghese, noted that the case is a difficult one in New York, hinting at the leftist bias within NY courtrooms when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.  In fact, Varghese suggested that when Judge Abena Darkeh took over the case she was oddly hostile towards the defense.  He mentions that she interrupted his opening statements multiple times, claiming that he could not use 2nd Amendment arguments in her courtroom:

"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.'"

Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights surpasses the authority of the State of New York and the courtroom of Judge Abena Darkeh.  New York progressives might like to think their state is a separate country from the US with its own rules, but it's not.  It's clear that this is a situation in which an activist judge is seeking to make an example out of a law abiding citizen with no previous criminal record.  The goal is to send a message that blue states are going to fabricate their own rules when it comes to gun rights regardless of constitutional precedent. 

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

The thing that any court does first - especially courts of first appearance - is to ascertain the 'identity' of the persons in the case. Right from the start, the so-called defendant has to express that he is not the person on the indictment. The clear evidence is that the indictment person doesn't bleed when cut by a pen-knife, but the so-called defendant does bleed. Names, addresses, and other info on the indictment might be similar to info of the so-called defendant, and the judge might say something to the effect that the info on the indictment only represents the so-called defendant, but it doesn't if the so-called defendant doesn't accept such. If the signature of the so-called defendant isn't on the the indictment, the 'person' on the indictment isn't one of his persons, by 4th Amendment. Rather, the prosecutor and the judge have stolen some of his persons' info to make up a fake person - fake until the so-called defendant accepts that it is one of his persons.

Comment by Chip Saunders
Entered on:

I do not seek to argue with Pure Trust, but this is actually a somewhat simpler matter than he describes, but just as pernicious. Courts of first appearance only concern themselves with whether statutes were violated, NOT whether those statutes are legal in the first place. To the judiciary, that is what appellate courts are for. So nearly any judge in any initial court is going to tell you the same thing;...Constitutional matters are not argued here. Or at least that's what they tell you when they have a bias against your take on that particular Constitutional matter. If they have a bias in FAVOR of your Constitutional principle, they are more than happy to entertain it. But they are not REQUIRED to. Indeed, it is perfectly appropriate to present and argue and cite Constitutional arguments at any point in any court.

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

Generally speaking, and nowadays, the Amendments don't exist in a courtroom. Why not? Because the Contract Clause, and what it has been adjudicated to mean, supersedes the Amendments. It works like this. When you go to court with an attorney, you have bypassed the Amendments by contract with your attorney, who is an officer of the court, under the judge's authority - and In other words, you have made a contract with the court to let it decide your case. You no longer have any say in the matter. The judge only has to follow the Amendments if she wants to, because it is now a case by contract, under contract law. This is part of the reason why Trump is having so many troubles in his trials. He contracted with the court to let the court decide. The court is acting as it is to bring Trump down, and to hide the info in this comment.