• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

Supreme Court Strikes down Chicago Gun ban

Recommended Posts

 

RIP Otis McDonald

 

OtisMcDonald-flickr-PhotoShop-Guru2.jpg

 

Otis McDonald, lead plaintiff in the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago (2010), died this weekend at the age of 80. As Brian Doherty noted yesterday in his obituary, McDonald was a South Side Chicago grandfather who wanted a handgun to protect his family from local hoodlums and fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to vindicate his rights. Thanks to his victory, the Second Amendment now joins the First Amendment and other Bill of Rights guarantees in applying to both the federal government and to the states.

 

McDonald v. Chicago was a civil rights triumph in every sense of the term. At its heart, the case dealt with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, the constitutional safeguard enacted in 1868 to wipe away the last traces of slavery, particularly the noxious “Black Codes” designed by the former Confederates to prevent the freedmen from owning property, moving freely, and keeping and bearing arms for self-defense...

 

 

Or...

 

 

Otis McDonald lived a checkered life.

His case was handled with the assumption he would never be seen in court again.

Which was correct.

His crimes were common knowledge to newspapers and prosecutors alike.

The man who defended his personal sawed off shotgun, which was discovered investigating a bNk robbery. The defense was based on military use sawed-off shotguns. Otis died of a bullet injury.

I read this stuff following Tom's links , he doesn't read them.

 

 

I never heard of "his crimes" despite reading my own links. Never heard about his sawed off shotgun. I heard he died at 80 following a long illness, not from a bullet injury.

 

Basically, jocal is making shit up again, which might explain why this post of his contains no links to any of mine.

 

Keep it classy, jocal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction, Tom.

 

But your timing is poor today. Five police officers were shot in a co-ordinated attack in Dallas yesterday.

Your extended race-baiting gags won't go over very well today.

(Readers and Anarchists need to see Mr. Ray''s repeated and thoughtless use of my red ink on P1 of this thread.)

 

You're here today to extol Otis McDonals, eh? Really?

On any given day, Otis McDonald would not approve of your racial zingers, and flip, pointless racial innuendo.

Nor would your black prisoner pal, "Ernie."

You have trashed a lot of racial discourse in our community, and have mis-represented the path of MLK.

You need to use MLK and McDonald to add some class to your level, your brand, of violence-based racial misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As expected, Mayor Daley and Chicago are doing everything they can to combat private gun ownership, and it has bought them another lawsuit.

 

They will lose again. The Second Amendment is great, long live the Constitution.

I expect that parts of what they want to do will be overturned, but parts will not. The truth is, we don't know what the second amendment will mean, but we'll learn over the next ten years or so.
Your thread is a telling time capsule from 2010.

Five of those ten years needed to define the Second A have elapsed.

Halfway thru 2016, the salad days after Macdonald/Heller are gone.

Five major gun restrictions have been met with SC silence.

A pro-restriction pattern has emerged in the higher courts.

You guys are dazed by circuit court headlights and SC wisdom.

.

Alan Gura and Larry Pratt are in dis-favor, legally speaking. The Heller mindset is being acutely challenged, and so are gun extremism and the acceptance of gun violence as a new normal.

 

It's 2016 now, time to think damage control, to fall back on a more reasonable path.

Naw, the SA Gun Club will offer denial and belligerence instead, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal doesn't like black folk owning guns.

Is that your takeaway? Really?

 

I'm apprehensive about white people and their guns, too.

Two different gun dynamics come into play, and neither is tenable.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction, Tom.

 

...

You're here today to extol Otis McDonals, eh? Really?...

 

You're welcome.

 

No, I just dragged the stuff you made up about Otis McDonald here because it seemed the right thread to correct your misinformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got Mr. McDonald mixed up with Miller.

You can prance around stuck on that, or we can review the present situation.

 

Gura crowed on the courthouse steps after Heller, made a few phone calls. And filers Mndonals ccase the same day.

Heady days back then.

 

But the picture is different today.

Heller and McDonald painted a picture of support for the new claims of the SAF.

Six years later, AW restrictions have been left standing by the SC.

 

Your problems run more deeply than that. You had to lay low for a spell.

Police bashing is out of favor this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got Mr. McDonald mixed up with Mr. Milller. Hard to fact check from a phone. My bad.

Misinformation is no tool of mine.

You can prance around stuck on my boo boo, which is your style. or we can review the present situation.

 

 

 

Gura crowed hyperbole on the courthouse steps after Heller, made a few phone calls, and Levy's staff filed the McDonald case the same day.

Heady days back then. The second was undefined, you said in 2010.

Today, in 2016, you speak differently, from a platform of confirmation bias.

 

But the picture is different today. You and Gura now bluff hyperbole about "rights", denying a sea change, a pattern, in the higher courts.

 

 

Heller and McDonald painted a picture of support for the new claims of the SAF.

Six years later, AW restrictions have been left standing by the SC. And Gura's big trial ballon in CA, Peruta, has now worked against your cause. Crickets Tom?

 

Your problems run more deeply than that. The Badgeless Dodger had to lay low for a spell.

Police bashing is out of favor this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Range Regs

 

In 2011, a federal court struck down the city’s complete ban on gun ranges in Ezell v. City of Chicago. In response the city passed a new law which legalized ranges but forced them to be located in manufacturing districts—at least 100 feet apart from other gun ranges, at least 500 feet away from residential areas, schools, churches, and a number of other special exceptions. Those under 18 were also barred from being able to enter any range within city limits.

 

The same plaintiffs who defeated the city in 2011 then filed a new suit against the city claiming the restrictions were unconstitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed on Wednesday, striking down all three restrictions in question.

 

In a ruling that described Chicago’s gun range law as an “elaborate scheme of regulations,” the court ordered the city to eliminate the regulations that were challenged.

 

“Only 2.2% of the city’s total acreage is even theoretically available [for gun range development], and the commercial viability of any of these parcels is questionable—so much so that no shooting range yet exists,” the court said in its ruling. “This severely limits Chicagoans’ Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range. To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That’s not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.”

 

“The age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny. We held in Ezell I that the Second Amendment protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That’s an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up.”

 

 

The kicking and screaming will continue. They'll come up with new "reasonable regulations" that amount to banning gun ranges and back to court we will go.

 

It's the cycle of common sense gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I have no problem with your opinion, soak. I think your idea of ending civilian gun ownership is every bit as realistic as Trump's idea of rounding up all the illegals for the same reasons: there are just too many and there's a BIG consent of the governed problem.

 

But fine, go ahead and try to get the second amendment repealed.

 

MEANWHILE, realize that the way we treat it will affect our other rights, even ones you like, whether you like it or not. Act accordingly.

Slippery slope! Slippery slope! Why is it no other democratic country's constitution enshrines firearm ownership as a sacred right?

 

...

 

 

I'm starting to think you don't know what a slippery slope argument is. No, that's not one. It's just the facts about how our legal system works.

 

The fact that other countries do not protect weapons rights does not change it. It's part of our American ordered system of liberty. Until you succeed in repealing the second, anything you do to weaken it weakens all the rest.

 

Bullshit and quit clogging up this thread.

 

 

Well, OK, this discussion can go on as well over here.

 

The topic case is full of comparisons of due process protections for various rights, exactly as I said.

 

I'll give you one more chance to admit that's the truth before I start posting a rather long string of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Tribune Bought By NRA

 

Or something. I'm not sure how else to explain that editorial. It's weeks late for April Fools.

 

Chicago has been fighting a losing battle on guns, and it's not quite ready to stop. In 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Washington, D.C., ban on handguns violated the Second Amendment, the city should have realized its own ban was doomed. Instead, it went through its own litigation, which ended with the Supreme Court ruling that Chicago, too, was trampling on a constitutional right.

 

At that point, the city passed a new ordinance allowing Chicagoans to get permits to own handguns, provided they got training at a gun range. But, in an odd twist (or a stubborn protest), the ordinance also prohibited commercial gun ranges. As might have been expected, the range ban was struck down by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

 

An "odd twist" could be accidental but Chicago's stubborn refusal was deliberate.

 

The city grudgingly allowed them, but only in manufacturing districts, with a special-use permit, and least 500 feet from any residential area, school, library, church, liquor store or day care center, among other sites. The restrictions, not by accident, put nearly 98 percent of the acreage in Chicago off-limits. The practical figure is 100 percent: Not a single commercial gun range has opened.

 

 

That was, of course, the intended result.

 

In truth, the judges had good reason to reject the reasoning behind the restrictive ordinance. The city, for example, claimed such venues are an environmental and fire hazard. That's no truer of commercial ranges than of the law enforcement ranges located in Chicago — which numbered 11 at the time the case was argued.

 

The city claimed commercial shooting sites could generate crime. But the court noted the city furnished no evidence to support this conjecture. And a place frequented by law-abiding adults equipped with firearms and skilled in their use really isn't the most tempting target for felons.

 

Plenty of cities have found these facilities compatible with public safety. A large commercial gun range opened a few years ago in Waukegan, for example, and Waukegan police Cmdr. Joe Florip says there have been "no issues or problems." Nor does he recall any with another range that is no longer in business. Chicago's lawyers were able to find only two examples of thefts from shooting ranges in the entire United States since 2010.

 

There is also considerable social value in encouraging those who own guns to learn how to use them safely and competently and maintain their proficiency. That's what ranges are for, and there is no good reason to force Chicagoans to drive to the suburbs to find one.

 

Aldermen may not like to see their power to regulate guns curtailed in court. But it's about time they woke up to reality.

 

 

Wow. The whole "you must get training but it's too dangerous to allow you to get training" argument is FINALLY wearing thin even at the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intended result was to have zero gun ranges in Chicago? Have a cite?

I suggest they wanted as few as possible, and I have no cite, either.

96% of the real estate in Chicago is off-limits to gun shops, by statute? Have a cite?

 

It's an interesting development, Tom.

Why do we find such adamant opposition to gun ranges?

Why does the market not support one gun range in Chicago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intended result was to have zero gun ranges in Chicago? Have a cite?

I suggest they wanted as few as possible, and I have no cite, either.

96% of the real estate in Chicago is off-limits to gun shops, by statute? Have a cite?

 

It's an interesting development, Tom.

Why do we find such adamant opposition to gun ranges?

Why does the market not support one gun range in Chicago?

 

Yes, the intended result was achieved. You want another cite? How about the one in the post above yours?

 

Zero was possible and was achieved. Same cite.

 

Yes, 98% of Chicago was off limits. Same cite.

 

We find such adamant opposition due to hoplophobia.

 

The market would support several gun ranges if they were not banned. That's why they banned them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The intended result was to have zero gun ranges in Chicago? Have a cite?

I suggest they wanted as few as possible, and I have no cite, either.

96% of the real estate in Chicago is off-limits to gun shops, by statute? Have a cite?

 

It's an interesting development, Tom.

Why do we find such adamant opposition to gun ranges?

Why does the market not support one gun range in Chicago?

 

Yes, the intended result was achieved. You want another cite? How about the one in the post above yours?

 

Zero was possible and was achieved. Same cite.

 

Yes, 98% of Chicago was off limits. Same cite.

 

We find such adamant opposition due to hoplophobia.

 

The market would support several gun ranges if they were not banned. That's why they banned them.

 

 

"Intended result" is your term.

Unless you can document the intention somehow, you made it up that this result was intended.

And two percent of Cook County is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The intended result was to have zero gun ranges in Chicago? Have a cite?

I suggest they wanted as few as possible, and I have no cite, either.

96% of the real estate in Chicago is off-limits to gun shops, by statute? Have a cite?

 

It's an interesting development, Tom.

Why do we find such adamant opposition to gun ranges?

Why does the market not support one gun range in Chicago?

 

Yes, the intended result was achieved. You want another cite? How about the one in the post above yours?

 

Zero was possible and was achieved. Same cite.

 

Yes, 98% of Chicago was off limits. Same cite.

 

We find such adamant opposition due to hoplophobia.

 

The market would support several gun ranges if they were not banned. That's why they banned them.

 

 

"Intended result" is your term.

Unless you can document the intention somehow, you made it up that this result was intended.

And two percent of Cook County is huge.

 

 

You said they wanted as few as possible.

 

Zero was possible. That's as few as possible, since negative gun range numbers make no sense.

 

So my cite for their intent is....

 

drumroll please...

 

 

You!

 

I can't wait for the messenger attack on yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go. I got Macdonald and Miller mixed up. I got Palmer and Parker mixed up, too. And either The Federalist 26 with 49 or 29 with 46, PLUS once confused whether Hamilton wrote one or the other. I cheerfully accepted being corrected in each of those cases.

 

Then there's the one you groused about from 2012 to 2015, the GREAT FLORIDA STAT WARPAGE OF '99.

(Which was a Pooplius scam, get this, based on the idea that a study cannot begin with a peak crime date.)

 

 

I try to avoid twisting or spinning messages. I report on court cases, and deliver information from vetted scholars and scientists. I avoid hide-and-seek games, by providing sources and even the page numbers where you can find the court case quotes I refer to.

 

I'm with Paul Elvstrom, who felt if you couldn't beat 'em fair and square, you have won nothing but the contempt of more worthy sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go. I got Macdonald and Miller mixed up. I got Palmer and Parker mixed up, too. And either The Federalist 26 with 49 or 29 with 46, PLUS once confused whether Hamilton wrote one or the other. I cheerfully accepted being corrected in each of those cases.

 

Then there's the one you groused about from 2012 to 2015, the GREAT FLORIDA STAT WARPAGE OF '99.

(Which was a Pooplius scam, get this, based on the idea that a study cannot begin with a peak crime date.)

 

 

I try to avoid twisting or spinning messages. I report on court cases, and deliver information from vetted scholars and scientists. I avoid hide-and-seek games, by providing sources and even the page numbers where you can find the court case quotes I refer to.

 

I'm with Paul Elvstrom, who felt if you couldn't beat 'em fair and square, you have won nothing but the contempt of more worthy sailors.

 

Hah! I didn't expect you to actually messenger-attack yourself but you are endlessly entertaining to me. Much like Rimas.

 

You thought McDonald was Miller in July of last year but you forgot about the time this year that you thought Miller was a black man. Good grief, man. You had six months to learn all three people who have had 2nd amendment cases before the Supreme Court. That's two months per person! And you STILL didn't get it right.

 

It's what makes you so fun to watch.

 

And yes, picking 1999 as a starting point is still textbook cherry picking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jocal: I'm with Paul Elvstrom, who felt if you couldn't beat 'em fair and square, you have won nothing but the contempt of more worthy sailors.

 

My presentations are habitually honest. You don't fare well when facing them, IMO.You are getting marginalized by the historical scholarship which I present.

 

 

You have no clue who the scholars are who supposedly supported Heller.

Your pro-gun position is soundly and consistently opposed by peer-reviewed science. Your defense is to quote John R Lott?

You are getting crushed in the courts. Consistently. Let's debate these defeats, taken as a whole:

 

the adventures of tom ray's elk:

WHOOPS, My Recent Court Failures by Alan Gura

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=152016&p=5434073

 

We're not talking little flubs here--your whose platform is rotten.

One example of your constitutional confusion: the AW's you think are specially protected by the 2nd are not covered at all by the second.

 

Kolbe vs Hogan 3/2016: AW's Not a Constitutional Right

P60 gun popularity mandating constitutionality is discussed

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html>

 

 

Your basic positions are crumbling.

Larry Pratt's followers (such as yourself) are finding that gun extremism is not a slam dunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE GREAT FLORIDA STAT WARPAGE OF '99

Tom's Ray's cheap little uproar nullifies all studies., since each references a time frame, and needs to.

This whole bit is a distraction from heinous developments in Florida.

A 45% gun violence increase in FL is worth discussing, not alleged "cherry picking".

This post is petulant, uninformed bullying, not a valid statistical criticism.

If cherry picking was a crime you would be doing life, Tom.

ALL comparisons reference a trend within a time frame.

Choosing a different time frame may present a different trend, so the trends can be compared.

That's how it works,

 

Feb. 2012,

still textbook cherry picking.

(Tom Ray is opining away here:) Saying, "most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999" is blatantly cherry picking the data to make a case that can not otherwise be made using that data. Yes, the data show that murders by firearm have increased by 45% since 1999, as you posted back when you were worried about such minutia. That tidbit was included for a reason, and 1987 was not chosen for the same reason. A look at all the data tell a different story than the tidbit your report chose to include. That's because your report was propaganda BS, and you were taken in by it.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&page=22#entry3687518>

 

Go ahead, make your case based on 1987. Tell us how gun violence got better in Florida. But the question is whether a whopping 45% increase happened, anythwerein the USA, ever.

It did.

 

After 1999, yet another spike happened in Florida within the same decade, and the second one was worse. Tom is crying like a titty baby...about alleged cherry picking here?

aa%20FL%20SYG%20gun%20deaths%20chart_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Guns Matter founder still wants a gun range

 

And the city still intends, as jocal said, to have "as few as possible," meaning zero.

 

Because common sense gun control means mandating training and prohibiting training facilities.

 

No doubt her black skin will make her seem immature and volatile to some, but does anyone really need to pay attention to those elk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Guns Matter founder still wants a gun range

 

And the city still intends, as jocal said, to have "as few as possible," meaning zero.

 

Because common sense gun control means mandating training and prohibiting training facilities.

 

No doubt her black skin will make her seem immature and volatile to some, but does anyone really need to pay attention to those elk?

 

Still no cite? The city complied.

Four hundred gun ranges could fit in 2% of Cook County.

If guns r cool, each would be a gold mine.

 

You were on your soapbox after MacDonald, seven years ago.

Do you care to further the prescient comment you made then?

Here's Post 58 of this thread. Your thread.

 

 

One Month After McDonald

'Tom Ray', on 08 Jul 2010 - 04:13 AM, said:

The truth is, we don't know what the second amendment will mean, but we'll learn over the next ten years or so.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=110114&p=2911881

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city complied? Then why did they get smacked down in federal court a few months ago?

 

Oh, right. I forgot. You don't read cases your elk lost and when you do read cases at all, you get really basic facts wrong.

 

Chicago's gungrabbers have lost the courts and now they've even lost gungrabby media outlets. They'll never lose extremists like you, but the rest of us understand pretty well that a city the size of Chicago has the market demand for at least one gun range. The fact that there isn't one yet isn't any market failure. It's a gungrabby politician success.

 

And it's temporary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer a very intelligent, politely framed, pertinent question.

You dodged, you deflected. You evaded what could become intelligent conversation.

 

Let's try again.

 

 

One Month After McDonald

'Tom Ray', on 08 Jul 2010 - 04:13 AM, said:

The truth is, we don't know what the second amendment will mean, but we'll learn over the next ten years or so.

http://forums.sailin...10114&p=2911881

 

Can we not summarize the definition of the Second a bit better, these seven years after MacDonald?

Is it all it was cracked up to be?

The reason I ask, my take is that it is not being interpreted per your wishful Libertarian hyperbole.

You were on a roll with MacDonald, but now progress on your checklist of gun rights isn't mentioned too much.

You seem to have fewer glib responses these days, a rooster gone quiet.

I hope the cruising threads are kinder to you.

 

 

 

They'll never lose extremists like you...

And you are projecting extremism onto me. Based on what? I just like to debunk guys like you (the Larry Pratt types)

 

I like moderate policies, Pooplius, such as licensing after training, effective background checks. effective interstate trafficking laws, and honest gun violence research.

And as I've articulated all along, I think that battle guns should be contained to the battlefields.

Ahem, the 1% among us who own AW's actually own three of them. They are an extremist minority IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you only had one assault weapon. You have three?

 

I didn't realize I had two of them (counting my wife's) until I learned that an ordinary .22 is an assault weapon.

 

I didn't go completely quiet about your false assertion that the city of Chicago "complied" by requiring training but banning training facilities. I pointed out that you were making it up and ignoring the ruling earlier this year that said "compliance" was going to have to include some number of gun ranges other than zero. Your ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen nor that I didn't mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not intelligent conversation. ^^^. JUst a cheap dodge.

You brought up your MacDonald thread, but won't discuss the evolution of the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Range Regs

 

In 2011, a federal court struck down the city’s complete ban on gun ranges in Ezell v. City of Chicago. In response the city passed a new law which legalized ranges but forced them to be located in manufacturing districts—at least 100 feet apart from other gun ranges, at least 500 feet away from residential areas, schools, churches, and a number of other special exceptions. Those under 18 were also barred from being able to enter any range within city limits.

 

The same plaintiffs who defeated the city in 2011 then filed a new suit against the city claiming the restrictions were unconstitutional. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed on Wednesday, striking down all three restrictions in question.

 

In a ruling that described Chicago’s gun range law as an “elaborate scheme of regulations,” the court ordered the city to eliminate the regulations that were challenged.

 

“Only 2.2% of the city’s total acreage is even theoretically available [for gun range development], and the commercial viability of any of these parcels is questionable—so much so that no shooting range yet exists,” the court said in its ruling. “This severely limits Chicagoans’ Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use via target practice at a range. To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety. That’s not nearly enough to survive the heightened scrutiny that applies to burdens on Second Amendment rights.”

 

“The age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny. We held in Ezell I that the Second Amendment protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That’s an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up.”

 

 

The kicking and screaming will continue. They'll come up with new "reasonable regulations" that amount to banning gun ranges and back to court we will go.

 

It's the cycle of common sense gun control.

 

The city complied, jocal?

 

Then why did the court say twice that they "flunked" the heightened scrutiny test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are stuck on a picky little detail.

The big picture escapes you in your world of shady assumptions.

Are you keeping score?

MacDonald is not the absolute license you said it was, eh?

Gun control has marched on and MacDonald is standing law.

 

About your petty question, where you have been stuck for two days.

It seems that "compliance" was met with a lack of "co-operation" in Chicago, which is a gun bloodbath now.

How do you like them apples, Pooplius?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are stuck on a picky little detail.

 

It seems that "compliance" was met with a lack of "co-operation" in Chicago, which is a gun bloodbath now.

 

 

Actually joey - its more of a good culling, i.e shitbags mostly shooting and killing other shitbags. Where the problem comes in is when they go and kill a random bystander or civilian by accident or on purpose just because. I'd be happy to wall off South Chicago, let all the civilians out, Then airdrop a bunch of gunz and ammoz into the hood and let the bangers kill each other off. Just make sure they all still have access to facebook and it would be a fait accompli. Problem SOLved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the wisdom of a "model gunowner."

A gun bloodbath is a wakeup call. Were the gangbangers created equally to your wife, or not?

Have you accepted the established number of gang killings as less than 20% yet? If not, provide your sources.

Quote

Link to six specific gang homicide numbers (annual figure is evidently between 12% and 17%):

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&p=4676745

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In 2011, 83% of murders [in Chicago] involved a firearm, and 6.4% were the result of a stabbing. 10% of murders in 2011 were the result of an armed robbery and at least 60% were gang or gang narcotics altercations. Over 40% of victims and 60% of offenders were between the ages of 17 and 25. 90.1% of victims were male. 75.3% of victims and 70.5% of offenders were African American, 18.9% were Hispanic (20.3% of offenders), and 5.6% were white (3.5% of offenders).[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago#Murder_and_shootings

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

Thanks for the wisdom of a "model gunowner."

A gun bloodbath is a wakeup call. Were the gangbangers created equally to your wife, or not?

Have you accepted the established number of gang killings as less than 20% yet? If not, provide your sources.

 

Yeah well, dunderboy - if you're going to quote your own posts, I'll do the same.  Obviously reading for comprehension is not your strong suit.  Here is what I said in my reply.  And even back then you chose to deliberately ignore the facts that the majority of homicides are gang-related or committed during the commission of felony crimes, according to the NIJ.  

Quote

Let me re-emphasize that again ...... AND during the commission of felony crimes. I never once said it was ALL gang-related. But the DOJ and FBI clearly say that the vast majority of gun related homicide occurs during the commission of a felony crime and gang-related activity. They are NOT, as you have falsely stated many times here, as a result of domestic violence in the home. Your very fuzzy metric of "shootings between acquaintances" as it is somehow too dangerous to have a gun in the home is total BS.Acquaintances can be anything from two drug dealers getting into an argument over a street corner, to two gang-bangers who knew each other in school getting into a shootout or any number of other similar situations.

 

Are you claiming the National Institute for Justice (NIJ), the analytical branch of the US Justice Department, is wrong?  

 

Quote

 

Mission of the National Institute of Justice

NIJ — the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice — is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and tools to inform the decision-making of the criminal justice community to reduce crime and advance justice, particularly at the state and local levels. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Simple Jeff said:

Yeah well, dunderboy - if you're going to quote your own posts, I'll do the same.  Obviously reading for comprehension is not your strong suit.  Here is what I said in my reply.  And even back then you chose to deliberately ignore the facts that the majority of homicides are gang-related or committed during the commission of felony crimes, according to the NIJ.  

Are you claiming the National Institute for Justice (NIJ), the analytical branch of the US Justice Department, is wrong?  

 

 

I'm not going to be trolled by such incomplete information.

1. No hard numbers 

2. it is out of context and

3.has been debunked

4.you can't back it up.

5.You've used that snippet for a few years,

You are a joke Jeffie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

No hard numbers? I'm not going to be trolled by such incomplete information.

1.You've used that snipped for a few years,

2. it is out of context and

3.has been debunked, and

4.you can't back it up.

You are a joke Jeffie.

I HAVE backed it up.  Repeatedly.  It comes straight from the NIJ website that I linked.  You are welcome to actually click on it and read it if you don't believe me.  The context is there.  The numbers are there.  There has been no-debunking.  If you don't like it, take up your grievance with the NIJ.  Don't shoot the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Simple Jeff said:

I HAVE backed it up.  Repeatedly.  It comes straight from the NIJ website that I linked.  You are welcome to actually click on it and read it if you don't believe me.  The context is there.  The numbers are there.  There has been no-debunking.  If you don't like it, take up your grievance with the NIJ.  Don't shoot the messenger.

Stop lying. Back up and corroborate your statement with other sources, it should be no problem if it's accurate. Present numbers or STFU. 

Thanks for the link from thirty months ago., where I provided six links and hard numbers.Three posts below your linked post, you had to toss in an Uncle. You were more mature and honest thirty months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simple Jeff said:

Allow me to use the Chicago Gambit, with zip for understanding, you cunt

Chicago is one city, and also a unique situation (a gun bloodbath fed by cheap misunderstandings and misdirected gun policies). Your numbers are rejected because they don't reflect the broad situation for most of the USA. Basicically, a poor effort I might add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Stop lying. Back up and corroborate your statement with other sources, it should be no problem if it's accurate. Present numbers or STFU. 

Thanks for the link from thirty months ago., where I provided six links and hard numbers.Three posts below your linked post, you had to toss in an Uncle. You were more mature and honest thirty months ago.

That link was as valid 30 months ago as it is today.  Again, if you have a problem with the NIJ, then just say so.  Please lay out your case for why you think the NIJ and the US Dept of Justice is lying.  Unlike you, I tend to trust gov't agencies who's sole charter it is to collect data and analyze these subjects rather than your paid shills who write "research" papers for a paying customer with an obviously biased political agenda.  

I'm sorry that your anger against me on this is simply transference that the the NIJ and the US gov't isn't backing up your preconceived notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

you cunt

Ooooh, must have hit the mark if I got joey to bring out the cunt card.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Simple Jeff said:

 The numbers are there.

Bullshit. We've been through this, you tiresome creep. Neither total homicides nor gang homicides are presented in your single source, but several of my sources do so unequivocally. You are so dishonest you have even denied your multiple "vast majority" gangsta homicide claims.

Quote

there has been no debunking...

Your idea was debunked in the link you provided.  

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I am not the ignorant sort, since five years of the research and history I have submitted has not been factually challenged on Political Anarchy.

It's been five years. So that means after about four years of study, you still didn't know Miller from McDonald. Truly top rate work there.

On 7/8/2016 at 5:06 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Or...

 

 

On 7/7/2016 at 7:15 PM, jocal505 said:

Otis McDonald lived a checkered life.

His case was handled with the assumption he would never be seen in court again.

Which was correct.

His crimes were common knowledge to newspapers and prosecutors alike.

The man who defended his personal sawed off shotgun, which was discovered investigating a bNk robbery. The defense was based on military use sawed-off shotguns. Otis died of a bullet injury.

I read this stuff following Tom's links , he doesn't read them.

 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's been five years. So that means after about four years of study, you still didn't know Miller from McDonald. Truly top rate work there.

 

 

 

 

Tom, the unintentional mistake was corrected, immediately.  The search  function shows a dozen mentions of the minor flub. You are having trouble moving on. 

You're an interesting cat, and you mis-represented Miller for years in our community.

  • The past few years of Tom's extensive Miller namedropping mis-represented the gun rights of fighting age males as gun rights of "The People."
  • Tom tells us that the SAF was the entity most responsible for the Heller case getting to the Supreme Court? Really? Not CATO?
  • What Tom claims broadly about the ACLU's gun position is false.  They flat-out oppose The Standard Model.
  • What Tom claims Adam Winkler says about due process is contradicted by Mr. Winkler in the first line of Tom's source.
  • MLK's position on gun violence, and on non-violence, is violated by Tom. MLK's core values are intentionally mis-represented.
  • The fifth auxiliary right trumpeted by Hamilton in Federalist 29 has been denied 4X by Tom, on Political Anarchy.
  • The congressional ban of gun violence research is denied by Tom. 
  • Colonial era gun confiscation existed at all levels of local, state, and federal government. Tom claims there was no confiscation at that time.
  • Tom's "Brady's Best "was spammed for years, but was useless.

 

As a bonus, I give you Pooplius, in his finest hour:

Quote

One Month After McDonald

'Tom Ray', on 08 Jul 2010 - 04:13 AM, said:

The truth is, we don't know what the second amendment will mean, but we'll learn over the next ten years or so.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=110114&p=2911881

 

 

;

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The search  function shows a dozen mentions of the minor flub.

Only you could add to the humor in this way.

Spending years researching the second amendment and then not knowing 2 of the 3 plantiffs in our history is a bit more than a minor flub. It's abject cluelessness. The fact you don't know it makes it even funnier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Only you could add to the humor in this way.

Spending years researching the second amendment and then not knowing 2 of the 3 plantiffs in our history is a bit more than a minor flub. It's abject cluelessness. The fact you don't know it makes it even funnier.Hi 

Hi Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 11:59 AM, jocal505 said:

Hi Tom.

Hi Joe,

In addition to not knowing McDonald from Miller after years of study, you got this wrong too:

Quote

The defense was based on military use sawed-off shotguns.

There was no defense offered in Miller's case. Had he shown up in court with an attorney, that person very likely would have pointed out the use of trench guns.

That didn't happen and the court said this:

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The absence of evidence wasn't because none existed. It was because only the government presented a case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Hi Joe,

In addition to not knowing McDonald from Miller after years of study, you got this wrong too:

There was no defense offered in Miller's case. Had he shown up in court with an attorney, that person very likely would have pointed out the use of trench guns.

That didn't happen and the court said this:

The absence of evidence wasn't because none existed. It was because only the government presented a case.

 

Here we have a rat bastard intellectual IMO. You have the balls to want to discuss Miller, but you need to retract your key Miller hyperbole.

How many TR Rick Rolls to the cover sheet of Miller have we suffered? Dozens of them. They masked a TR lie.

WHEN CONFRONTED ABOUT BUTCHERING MILLER CASE LAW, YOU DEMANDED CITES  of yourself making claims about Miller being considered as "The People."  I easily found three such direct lies, and posted them, weeks ago.

Quote
  On 10/26/2017 at 6:09 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

If that were true, you could quote a post in which I said it. Go ahead, consult your creepy database.

The issue? Has Pooplius been claiming gun rights for "The People" based on the Miller decision?

Scot's search function. Miller > Uncooperative Tom >

  • Oct. 23 2016. JBSF and I are part of the people just like Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. If your last question were relevant to whether the second amendment applies to us, the Supreme Court never would have heard Miller's case. But they did. And then Lawrence Tribe admitted why. But keep clinging to that lie.
  • Nov. 5 2016. I only claim he (Miller) was part of "the people" from which the militia is drawn and the Supreme Court seems to have thought that was enough to make the second amendment cover him, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. 
  • Nov. 7, 2016.How could there be a Miller case if the 2A did not apply to Miller? You know he was not enrolled, right? Just part of "the people" whose rights are protected by the amendment.

Tom, this is another issue which needs retraction. The Parker case, from CATO, expanded gun rights to The People. Miller was adjudicated because Miller was a fighting age male, as you admit elsewhere.

 

You corrected and retracted nothing, you just pivoted your bullshit to elsewhere. Jack Miller's sawed off shotgun case was accepted because Miller was a fighting age male, and had militia rights as such. The MiIller case affirms militia limits on the Second Amendment. It does not strengthen gun rights for women, homes, or the elderly. CATO needed the Miller case to go away, actually.

You need to avoid mention of Miller until you sort this out. And you need to acknowledge how CATO's Parker case ginned up gun rights for The People in 2007.

The heart of this matter? Outside of all the urban myth, we need to look at the law. Militia law and personal self defense law will not mix.

Quote

Why History Matters Robert J. Spitzer,

While a military weapon might be used for personal self-defense, or a small side-arm might have military utility, as a

matter of law the activity of collective military defense was always understood to be entirely different from an individual’s

personal self-defense.30 The former pertained to the Second Amendment, whereas the latter did not, and never did.31 If a

Person shot and killed someone in what the defendant claimed was an act of self-defense, prosecutors and judges did and do rely

on the criminal law, as it evolved in the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition. Cornell’s discussion of cases, long forgotten now, like

the fatal shooting of Harvard student Charles Austin in 1807 by a political rival,32 make plain what anyone who does, or claims to

know about criminal law knows: that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with personal self-defense. One would

not know this to hear the near-infinite repetition of a “Second Amendment right to personal defense” in modern political debate.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByoyLoSA8QKpOG10WnNDSVlGNlk/view

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

YOU DEMANDED CITES  of yourself making claims about Miller being considered as "The People." 

No I didn't, which is probably why you dishonestly cut out the part I was asking to be cited. It looked like this:

On 10/26/2017 at 9:09 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 10/25/2017 at 8:58 PM, jocal505 said:

You claimed repeatedly that Miller grants guns to "The People". 

If that were true, you could quote a post in which I said it. Go ahead, consult your creepy database.

And I never claimed "that Miller grants guns to The People."

I did, however, claim that there was no defense offered in the Miller case. Contrary to what you said, that's actually true.

I also claimed that there's no evidence that SCOTUS took his case because of his age or his sex. That's because, contrary to what you said, there's no evidence that SCOTUS took his case because of his age or his sex.

But a guy who does "quality research" on Miller for four years without being able to distinguish him from McDonald isn't going to catch on to such things all that quickly, so I'll have patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And I never claimed "that Miller grants guns to The People."

You claimed it all over the place, you liar, and I provided three examples. You keep leaving a trail of discrepencies. 

How about that Parker Case, which fabricated gun rights for The People. No comments, Tom? 

Quote

Parker/Libertarian/Pooplius version:  the militia was the collective body designed to act in concert.

 

Supreme Court version, USA: precedent limits the “militia” to those who are capable of bearing arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2800 (2008) (confirming its holding in Miller);United  States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) (link); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (link).

 

 

Quote

 P 1730 Historiographal Crisis, Charles and Christianson

In sum, when examining the Second Amendment’s historiography, the rise of the Standard Model can be attributed to a doctrinal deficiency—the need to decode “the people” and its relation to the prefatory “well regulated militia” language—not superior historical methods or well researched conclusions.195 The deficiency, in turn, aided in the erection of other Standard Model pillars196 such as

Joyce Lee Malcolm’s research on the English rightThe Heller Court relied on a textual approach to constitutional interpretation. See 554 U.S. at 578–603.  The Court buttressed this claim by relying on the flawed thesis of historian Joyce Lee Malcolm. See JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE ORIGINS OF AN ANGLO-AMERICAN RIGHT (1994).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Miller was adjudicated because Miller was a fighting age male, as you admit elsewhere.

Just not true and I never said it.

Otis McDonald, who was not Jack Miller BTW, was born in 1933. Do a little math and tell me why his case was adjudicated. (That's the Chicago case, by the way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Miller was adjudicated because Miller was a fighting age male, as you admit elsewhere.

Just not true and I never said it.

You said it one year ago, liar boi.

Quote

Tom Ray, Nov. 4, 2016: I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" described him.

You are flopping all over the place. Please define Miller's status for us today. Let's see if you understand the militia limits assumed in Miller. Then we can re-examine The People in terms of the Parker ruling.

You're not very good at this.

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 2:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Just not true and I never said it.

Hello? Tom Ray? You brought this thread out of mothballs, not very bright. Then you had to disappear after lying about  your longstanding Miller claims. A forum search function shows five pages of Tom Ray dragging the Miller Case into our threads. You  must be an expert.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=miller&page=5&author=Uncooperative Tom

 

 

Pick one of these today. Either/or. This particular Miller detail was a pertinent, important legislative matter for gun rights in the twentieth century. It seems we need to check to see if you understand it.

  • Did the Miller case assume gun rights for "The People?"
  • Or did the Miller case assumes gun rights for fighting age males?

We need to sort this out, bubba. You may sound confused today, but no worries. You went OCD on our forums and left five pages of blatantly dishonest summary of the Miller case law. It's a hoot. In your fabricated reality, which you repeated scores of times, Jack Miller represents The People for CATO as of 1939. Can you quote the Miller case saying that? No? Because I can quote the Parker case claiming that in 2007, with Robert Levy and Tom Palmer and Craig Neely looking on.

Mission creep for the Second Amendment? That sounds fishy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Not one soul on Political Anarchy has dared to debate a single historical fact I have presented. 


LMAO!

It's funny every time, much like my dog jumping into the pond!

Thanks for the laugh, Joe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


LMAO!

It's funny every time, much like my dog jumping into the pond!

Thanks for the laugh, Joe!

This applies to you in particular. You are such a douche you will neither support not reject CATO's presentation in Heller. You haven't responded to George Washington's confiscation techniques. I badgered you for two years, but you couldn't name Scalia's scholars. When I chased them down, you could not answer for their glaring discrepencies. There is no linear discussion, you are Tom Ray after all, you just bail from conversations when cornered. (See below)

You don't know enough colonial history (or have enough class) to discuss the matter in depth. Your authors' work leaves you exposed, too.

Quote

LET'S SORT OUT  THE FEDERALIST 29 with Tom Ray and Joe

From Tom Ray, Post 73

(Federalist 29. ) "...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

(Tom Ray:) Do you think he (Alexander Hamilton) was talking about armed resistance to a tyrannical government? I do.

 

Post 78 Aug. 9 (Joe identifies Blackstone's Fifth Auxiliary right, and enumerates the process by which to legally confront tyrants, and explains the historical context which precipitated such organization, the Glorious Revolution )    http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/186399-scotus-to-revise-gun-laws/&do=findComment&comment=5877387

Post 86 Aug. 10

(Tom, again) What do you think it's talking about?

(Joe) In a word, the five auxiliary rights. Sort that shit, Tom

First Correction Post 113, Aug 13

(Tom ) Unfortunately, King George and Parliament, much like our government, neglected to put into law the proper procedures for overthrowing the government

(Joe) Parliament passed Blackstone's fifth auxiliary right, bubba.

Second correction, Post 155 Aug. 14

(Tom) The Founders were not following any "right of armed rebellion" that had been written into British law. 

(Joe) This is my second correction of this mis-statement, Tom.

Third correction, Post 172 Aug. 17

(Tom)  ...despite there being no provision in British laws for the violent overthrow of the government.

... no form of government has ever had prescribed procedures for the violent overthrow of the government.

(Joe) WTF? Tom, this is your third correction.

Fourth correction, Post 186 Aug 17

(Tom) …ones  that did not have a constitutionally-prescribed procedure for the violent overthrow of the government. Meaning, again, every government.

(Joe)  DAILY LIES? You are repeating an untruthful statement for the fourth or fifth time.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/186399-scotus-to-revise-gun-laws/&page=2#comment-5886576

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to think a great deal about the history profs' brief in the topic case, Joe.

They think the right to bear arms means the right to "keep and bear" commonly used military rifles of the time, right?

I agree with them on that point but don't think that's all it means.

Does seem to imply that battlefield weapons like yours and mine are protected, doesn't it? I mean, if they have military usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 6:31 AM, jocal505 said:

Hello? Tom Ray? You brought this thread out of mothballs, not very bright. Then you had to disappear after lying about  your longstanding Miller claims. A forum search function shows five pages of Tom Ray dragging the Miller Case into our threads. You  must be an expert.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=miller&page=5&author=Uncooperative Tom

 

 

Pick one of these today. Either/or. This particular Miller detail was a pertinent, important legislative matter for gun rights in the twentieth century. It seems we need to check to see if you understand it.

  • Did the Miller case assume gun rights for "The People?"
  • Or did the Miller case assumes gun rights for fighting age males?

We need to sort this out, bubba. You may sound confused today, but no worries. You went OCD on our forums and left five pages of blatantly dishonest summary of the Miller case law. It's a hoot. In your fabricated reality, which you repeated scores of times, Jack Miller represents The People for CATO as of 1939. Can you quote the Miller case saying that? No? Because I can quote the Parker case claiming that in 2007, with Robert Levy and Tom Palmer and Craig Neely looking on.

Mission creep for the Second Amendment? That sounds fishy.

 

Tom? You are quite an expert on Miller. Answer the salient question. Toss in your source, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
  • Did the Miller case assume gun rights for "The People?"
  • Or did the Miller case assumes gun rights for fighting age males?

I have seen no evidence that it assumed gun rights for fighting age males.

I have to assume that the Supreme Court heard Miller's case because he's part of the people. He's also a different person from Otis McDonald, the topic of this thread. How old was Otis when his case was heard? You have learned a bit about him by now, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You seem to think a great deal about the history profs' brief in the topic case, Joe.

They think the right to bear arms means the right to "keep and bear" commonly used military rifles of the time, right?

I agree with them on that point but don't think that's all it means.

Does seem to imply that battlefield weapons like yours and mine are protected, doesn't it? I mean, if they have military usefulness.

No distractions. We have unfinished business. You have been lying about Miller for a few years.

 

On 11/27/2017 at 10:07 PM, jocal505 said:
On 11/27/2017 at 12:43 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And I never claimed "that Miller grants guns to The People."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have to assume that the Supreme Court heard Miller's case because he's part of the people.

Your assumptions are meaningless. Where is your quote? Just like Sol indicated, you have a habit of mangling case law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 7:40 AM, jocal505 said:

Tom Ray, Nov. 4, 2016: I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" described him.

You got this phrase ^^^ from the actual case. YOUR quote indicates the militia framework upon which the Miller case was decided.

So.....

Pick one of these today. Either/or. This particular Miller detail was a pertinent, important legislative matter for gun rights in the twentieth century. It seems we need to check to see if you understand it.

  • Did the Miller case assume gun rights for "The People?"
  • Or did the Miller case assumes gun rights for fighting age males?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have seen no evidence that it assumed gun rights for fighting age males.

None, that is, except for your own direct quotation from the actual case, which excludes female people, old people, black people, some teenagers, and 46 year old males. This example of the militia is from a Miller supporting brief.

Quote

By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:

That every able-bodied Male Person, being[p181] a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

 

The urban myth that the colonial militias included all people came from CATO. Using snippets from Emerson, and contortions from Palmer, they concocted the idea, and had it accepted within the Parker case. From there, The People oozed into both Heller and MacDonald, with certain ambiguity.

"The People" gained constitutional gun rights in 2007. The Miller case law opposed and confronts the idea of The People. The problem with Tom's "pretend soldier" presentation is that soldier shootings and civilian shootings will always be adjudicated from different legal bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW:

Since I was curious and didn't feel like giving amazon $30 bucks, here's a couple of general links to Patrick Charles' works so you can see the gyst of his arguments at the time.  He's got some newer stuff but it's basically a similar treatment to a broader topic (not just the 2nd) from the reviews I've read.

 

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2450&context=ulj

http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/06/5-questions-for-patrick-j-charles-britannica-contributor-on-gun-control-and-the-second-amendment/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

This guy ^^^ will lead the SA Gun Club to their finest ammunition, to their own best authors.

I wrote to thank him for his organization, and particularly for his systematic presention of the written arguments of the pertinent SAF type writers. He wrote back. It was important to him that folks were examining this, that his work was being considered. Scalia ignored him twice, rolling instead with Clayton Cramer on "Bear Arms."

The last third of the link above is a guide for the courts to incorporate corrections while fully respecting Heller and MacDonald as they stand. Obviously, I like him, IMO Tom Ray could take a page from Mr. Charles' book and have such class.

 

Here are excerpts from cmilliken's second link, an American contributor being interviewed by Encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote

Patrick J. Charles, ASAF

I began my search reading the prominent works of “individual right” and “collective right” commentators. I came to the conclusion that the only way to settle the debate was to start my research by sifting through every American statute available from our inception to 1800. (…)

 

 

Upon sifting through each state/colony’s statutes a common thread began to develop. First, the phrases “bear arms” or “keep arms” were not in any laws concerning crimes, self-defense, homicide, hunting, game etc. Second, in state/colony militia laws the phrases “bear arms” and “keep arms” were prevalent. Third, the phrase “well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State” or some deviation of this phrase was prevalent in the preambles of many of these militia laws. Fourth, a close examination of the militia laws revealed much about eighteenth century American society and arms.

I came to this determination because, at this time in our history, the laws were not as expansive as they are today. Generally laws were one or two pages, leaving much to be determined by the common law. More importantly, these laws were generally printed, distributed, and read aloud so that the public was on notice. Thus, I would argue that legislative intent and popular understanding would have been one and the same at this time.

(…)

I also believe we have such a different approach because the Founding Fathers rested our national defense and constitutional balance on the concept of a “well-regulated militia.” Our Founders viewed arms bearing as a badge of citizenship to protect one’s rights, liberties, and property from the encroachment of enemies—foreign and domestic. It should be emphasized that by 1787 the rest of the Western worlds were operating with professional standing armies. The American colonies were distinct in that they still prescribed to the militia system. Although this militia ideology ultimately failed by the early nineteenth century, a right to arms remained enshrined in our Constitution, which is the oldest standing Constitution today.

It was from these findings that I concluded that the right to “keep arms” and “bear arms” was intimately tied to service in the militia, and began to research more. After going through congressional and state debates, the proceedings of the state and federal constitutional conventions, and numerous other sources I did not find any substantive data to sway my conclusion.

http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/06/5-questions-for-patrick-j-charles-britannica-contributor-on-gun-control-and-the-second-amendment/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The urban myth that the colonial militias included all people came from CATO.

Shhhh! Christ, Joe, you reveal our time machine and all is lost!

When CATO time-travelled back to influence how the Supreme Court viewed the Beard case, we covered our tracks very carefully. Now you're going to blow it!

By the way, have you learned who Otis McDonald is yet? You know, the guy you ignored in your research for several years? The guy who the topic case was about? Let's see if you can answer a simple question about him: how old was he when the Supreme Court took his case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Shhhh! Christ, Joe, you reveal our time machine and all is lost!

When CATO time-travelled back to influence how the Supreme Court viewed the Beard case, we covered our tracks very carefully. Now you're going to blow it!

By the way, have you learned who Otis McDonald is yet? You know, the guy you ignored in your research for several years? The guy who the topic case was about? Let's see if you can answer a simple question about him: how old was he when the Supreme Court took his case?

Tripe again. A selection of rabbit holes, too. While years of Miller boogering by Tom Ray is not dealt with.

Quote
11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have seen no evidence that it assumed gun rights for fighting age males.

Tom Ray, Nov. 4, 2016:

I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" described him.

Quote
On 11/27/2017 at 12:43 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And I never claimed "that Miller grants guns to The People."

11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I have to assume that the Supreme Court heard Miller's case because he's part of the people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both statements can be true, Joe.

How old was Miller when the Supreme Court heard his case anyway?

You should really learn at least one basic fact about Otis McDonald to demonstrate that you've learned (with my help, not through your own research as claimed above) to distinguish him from Jack Miller. How about it?

How old was Otis when his case was heard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop the bullshit. And correct your falsehoods if you want to be respected.

I now think of you as a ninny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll correct myself to this extent: I think Parker was a good plaintiff too. She's a person. I know, I know, a woman and a black so can't fit in your conception of who deserves rights, but a good plaintiff all the same. How old was she? And did she have an operational trigger finger at the time her case was working its way through the courts?

Sorry to see you haven't learned the first fact about Otis McDonald yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2017 at 12:19 PM, jocal505 said:
On 12/10/2017 at 6:08 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Is there anyone here who thinks I should use this thread to talk about how old Otis McMiller was when the Supreme Court took his case? I don't see a lot of opposition to his idea, so I guess I should go ahead.

McDonald (in 2010) is not Miller (in 1939).


Yes, I know. I'm the one who let you in on that little fact after you bragged about learning stuff that never happened from your years of study.

Now, let's see if you can learn something all by yourself, without me giving you the answer:

How old was Otis McDonald in 2010?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


Yes, I know. I'm the one who let you in on that little fact after you bragged about learning stuff that never happened from your years of study.

Now, let's see if you can learn something all by yourself, without me giving you the answer:

How old was Otis McDonald in 2010?

No rabbit holes. Why did you booger the core of the Miller case on Political Anarchy for a few years, then dodge retraction?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

The NRA's worst nightmare is a bunch of Black activists exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Inexplicable in your world that the NRA is the entity most responsible for Otis McDonald's victory, huh?

Gura wanted to wander out into the privileges and immunities weeds and was unprepared to argue the due process case. Scalia told him to shut up and the NRA's lawyer won the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Inexplicable in your world that the NRA is the entity most responsible for Otis McDonald's victory, huh?

Gura wanted to wander out into the privileges and immunities weeds and was unprepared to argue the due process case. Scalia told him to shut up and the NRA's lawyer won the case.

1. What would be so wrong with just responding in the original thread?

2. Your possibly sheltered rural existence is showing. You and I both know that legal gun ownership is systematically denied to lower income Blacks through disproportionate application of minor, often fee-based violations that then remove their right to legal gun ownership and concealed carry. You can send encryption software overseas with impunity because you're a well-off Caucasian in rural Florida. But if you got caught smoking a doobie in Gary, Indiana, in 1986, your right to concealed carry and guns might be removed.

Which is a greater threat to national security? The flow of encrypted messages, or some kid self-medicating with a doobie?

Inexplicable in your world that you have knowledge of these things, yet you refuse to connect the dots of institutional racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mikewof said:

1. What would be so wrong with just responding in the original thread?

2. Your possibly sheltered rural existence is showing. You and I both know that legal gun ownership is systematically denied to lower income Blacks through disproportionate application of minor, often fee-based violations that then remove their right to legal gun ownership and concealed carry. You can send encryption software overseas with impunity because you're a well-off Caucasian in rural Florida. But if you got caught smoking a doobie in Gary, Indiana, in 1986, your right to concealed carry and guns might be removed.

Which is a greater threat to national security? The flow of encrypted messages, or some kid self-medicating with a doobie?

Inexplicable in your world that you have knowledge of these things, yet you refuse to connect the dots of institutional racism.

This thread illustrates that the NRA supported perhaps the most prominent Black activist exercising his Second Amendment rights so seemed responsive to your point.

I'd say encrypted messages and doobies represent about the same threat: none until govt responds to them.

Your complaint was, "the gun community has been unwilling to approach these problems in an organized way."

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

This thread illustrates that the NRA supported perhaps the most prominent Black activist exercising his Second Amendment rights so seemed responsive to your point.

I'd say encrypted messages and doobies represent about the same threat: none until govt responds to them.

Your complaint was, "the gun community has been unwilling to approach these problems in an organized way."

Be careful what you wish for.

 

And yet, millions of Americans have had their freedoms removed for smoking weed, and as far as I know, not one American has lost his or her freedoms for sharing encryption algorithms.

Of course the gun community has been unwilling to approach these problems in an organized way, because the gun industry makes massive profits on arming people with pink asses, and disarming people with brown asses.

As you seem to know, this photo is the single greatest threat to the NRA ...

Malcolmxm1carbine3gr.gif

If brown people start to more fully exercise their legal right to arm up, then gun control would again be a national agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:

If brown people start to more fully exercise their legal right to arm up, then gun control would again be a national agenda. 

The (D) party pushes gun control all the time, where have you been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

Malcolmxm1carbine3gr.gif

It just wouldn't be modern US if a lefty wasn't calling anyone who disagrees with them a racist. It lost all meaning during the Obama administration, Mike

Or were you referring to a felon in possession of a firearm? Its not clear if that was illegal in 64/65. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

It just wouldn't be modern US if a lefty wasn't calling anyone who disagrees with them a racist. It lost all meaning during the Obama administration, Mike

Or were you referring to a felon in possession of a firearm? Its not clear if that was illegal in 64/65. 

And it wouldn't be contemporary USA is a righty didn't get suddenly indignant over their inability to understand history.

I didn't call anyone a racist, your slip is showing. I'm pointing out the reality of history of which you seem ignorant.

Malcolm X and the Black Panthers pushed for open access to guns, and as a response to the spectre of heavily armed Black Activists, the NRA, Ronald Reagan and even the KKK pushed hard for gun control. Since you apparently don't believe a gun-owning lefty like me, perhaps you can accept a history lesson from a gun-owning Libertarian like Normy?

My point about institutional racism is that small crimes, often fee-based crimes of poverty, are now regularly employed to remove the rights of gun ownership from urban poor. 

That photo of Malcolm X, my poorly-informed righty friend, is of him holding the exact same semi automatic that I own, and that I'm willing to sacrifice to see some change in your community. The Black Panthers built a huge arsenal, with grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons, and an army's worth of ammo. They carried all their weapons openly, which was legal. Even Martin Luther King Jr. was protected by heavily armed activists after the first assassination attempt against him failed.

Open Carry activists and police watchers of the last few years only followed the Black Panthers playbook.

So I'm pointing out the historical reality that you are trying to turn into a shitfight ... the NRA (not outright racists) the KKK (outright racists) and assorted politicians (mixed bag) responded to the Black Panthers with carefully-concerted gun control legislation. 

Now it's 2018, and the main gun advocacy group, the NRA, successfully pushes for more open access to guns, because their Black Militant "problem" is now considered mostly solved ... young Black men are given legal records nearly as a rite of passage, with felony records for crimes as minor as drug possession, or even just not being able to afford the legal fees to defend their misdemeanors in court. Relatively non-criminal, peaceful urban poor are thus barred from carrying concealed weapons, and usually even buying any weapon at all. The goals of the the 1960s NRA, KKK, and politicians are now reality better than any of them could have imagined; middle class and even lower class rural people are well-armed, while urban poor are disarmed.

But things are changing. Just last month, successful challenges have been made to State laws that restored driver's licenses to urban poor who had their licenses refined revoked because they couldn't afford administrative fees. That right may soon apply to some State's concealed carry and gun laws. And when/if that happens, I'll wager that your take on gun control suitably shifts as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites