• 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

On 1/12/2018 at 6:13 PM, jocal505 said:

SHALL ISSUE IN WASHINGTON STATE MEANT THIS TO THE SHOOTER'S FAMILY:  Absent any felony, if Ian hadn't been thrown in the loony bin for two weeks or more, he my not be denied a gun.

That is simply untrue.  MAY ISSUE had fuck all to do with his being denied a gun.  Why do you continue to lie when this is pointed out to you.

Jesus, read your own fucking state gun laws for once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Washington

Especially the top row in red.  Even if WA was a "May issue" state like you so fervently wish for, that would have changed nothing about the Cafe racer incident.  NOTHING.  Repeat that after me slowly...... NUH-THING!

Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Revised Code of Washington Notes
State Permit to Purchase? No No    
Firearm registration? No Partial

RCW 09.41.110(9)(a) and (b)

Retail dealers must record and report all retail pistol sales to local police/sheriff and to state department of licensing.
Owner license required? No No    
Constitutional Right to Bear Arms? Yes Yes WA Constitution art. 1 sec. 24  
Carry permits required? No Yes

RCW 09.41.050CCW Reciprocity

Washington is a "shall-issue" state and will grant concealed carry permits to all applicants who meet the criteria. There are no training requirements.
Open carry? Yes Yes RCW 09.41.050 (in vehicle) Open carry is lawful in Washington without any permit. Open carry of a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal only with a concealed pistol license. Open carry of a loaded long gun in a vehicle is illegal, regardless of CPL possession.
State Preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes

RCW 09.41.290RCW 09.41.300

State Law does not allow more restrictive local laws.
Assault weapons ban? No No    
Magazine capacity rectrictions? No No    
NFA weapons restricted? Partial Partial

RCW 09.41.190RCW 09.41.220RCW 09.41.225RCW 09.41.250(1)(c)

Machine guns and short-barreled shotguns—unless purchased before July 1, 1994—are illegal for non-law-enforcement possession. Suppressors,destructive devices and any other weapons are lawful to possess and use if registered properly with ATF. Short barreled rifles are lawful to possess and use if registered properly with the ATF, as of June 12, 2014.[12]
Peaceable Journey laws? No No

RCW 09.41.050RCW 09.41.060 18 USC § 926A CCW Reciprocity

Federal travel-with-a-firearm laws apply. Some out-of-state CCW licenses valid, otherwise carry must be open or, in a vehicle, unloaded.
Castle Doctrine / Stand your ground law? Not defined - de facto RCW 9A.16.050, RCW 9A.16.110 The Washington State Supreme Court ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[13][14]
Background checks required for private sales? Yes Yes Initiative 594 (2014) Private party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed dealer, who is required by federal law to conduct a background check and keep a record of the sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, since you are so obviously FUCKING stupid on this issue, I've taken the time to explain what "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" actually mean.  You're most welcome!

From wiki

Quote

 

Shall-issue[edit]

"Shall issue" redirects here. For the laws that define these jurisdictions, see shall-issue law.

A shall-issue jurisdiction is one that requires a license to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such licenses is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause". The laws in a Shall-Issue jurisdiction typically state that a granting authority shall issue a license if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a license at their discretion.

 

Quote

May-issue[edit]

A may-issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement. Moreover, issuing authorities in most may-issue jurisdictions are not required to provide a substantive reason for the denial of a concealed carry permit. Some may-issue jurisdictions may provide administrative and legal avenues for an applicant to appeal a permit denial, while others do not.

Note these definitions ONLY apply to a permit for a concealed handgun.  Nothing whatsoFUCKINGever to do with simply ownership or possession.

Jesus, you can be such a fucking moran sometimes.  Sheesh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 7:09 AM, jocal505 said:

What? Thanks for the whitewash on the mandatory and automatic granting of weapons by a flawed and incomlete NICS system, using a bar set by the NRA at the level of my ankles. 

The NRA's standards are used i most state laws, and they're scary, I studied them.The difference between shall issue and may issue is about whether checkered idiots are strutting around legally armed, or not.

May Issue can be (and should be IMO) about local discretion being added by local LE. 

And see Joe, this is where your obvious learning disabilities are evadent......  As many of us here have already said "may issue and shall issue" only pertain to concealed permits.  And now you are trying to confuse NICS with the issuance of those CCW permits.  One has nothing to do with the other.  I agree with you, FTR, that NICS is not perfect and needs some urgent fixing.  I have said that many times before.  But don't now try to flip flop over to NICS.  

And there is no evidence that I could find that Stanwiki ever applied for much less was granted a CCW permit.  But lets say he DID apply for a CCW and for argument's sake there was a "May issue" regime in WA at the time.....  even if he applied for a CCW and the Sheriff just didn't like him and denied him a CCW permit - barring any felony convictions, Stanfucky would have still been allowed to keep his gunz and the sheriff couldn't do anything about that.  

Seriously joe - read that over a couple of times and process it before you launch into more cutnpastes tirades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2018 at 4:09 AM, jocal505 said:

Can't keep up much? No court cases were brought against Ian, due to family dynamics. Just police calls and the resulting police reports. That's often how it works out, separate from the additional plea-down factory in the courts. Two dixtinct but related problems. 

Here we have two types of violent miscreants who would not appear in the NICS database, but local police would be hip to both. May Issue would screen them. No it would not. 

See how that works?  Yes, I do.  But Its apparent you do not understand how it works.

OMG, never mind.  You are living proof that there is no cure for stupid.

The pertinent problem here is enforcement of the law, or lack of.  As well as the principle of "innocent until PROVEN guilty".  Your problem is not with the 2nd Amendment, but rather the with the 6th Amendment.  Fix the legal system and your gun problem disappears.

Share this post


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

. better enforcement of existing laws would have the most effect on gun crime.

These  existing  laws and their parameters, met subterfuge by the NRA. As written, well- gutted by the gun lobby, they were not designed for the benefit of us, the people. To let these laws stand misses the elephant on the sofa.

Share this post


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

The pertinent problem here is enforcement of the law, or lack of. 

That's a jaded opinion, and it's wrong. The key laws thenselves (FOPA in 1986, Tiahrt in 2003, the PLCAA in 2005), are inherently flawed.

Share this post


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

Here we have two types of violent miscreants who would not appear in the NICS database, but local police would be hip to both. May Issue would screen them. No it would not. 


Option One. Ian Stawicki applies to purchase six handguns in a "shall issue" state. He gets the guns. Though quite violent, he meets the scary, minimal criteria for CCP, so he "may not be denied" the legal right to carry  these weapons.

Option Two, Ian Stawicki files for gun purchases in a "may issue" state. The NICS allows the purchases, but his carry permit and attitude  get denied when local authorities present police reports sorting out the violent incidents of Ian Stawicki. 

Even if Ian could legally purchase the guns, yes,  this certainly shows the NICS database needs to be able to sort this guy out. Ergo enforcing this law, as it stands, is not good enough.

 

The collection of the guns of an offender who succeeds in a purchase?? That is now legally possible in WA, I understand.

Quote

Washington Has Reported 150 Denied Gun Buyers to Law Enforcement Since Adoption of “Lie and Try” Law

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/washington-state-background-checks-denied-gun-buyers/

 

Share this post


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

And there is no evidence that I could find that Stanwiki ever applied for much less was granted a CCW permit.

Go back and do your homework. Cover the basics, I might add. Ian renewed his CCP in Kittitas County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Even if WA was a "May issue" state like you so fervently wish for, that would have changed nothing about the Cafe racer incident.  NOTHING.  Repeat that after me slowly...... NUH-THING!

May issue would have denied Ian his gun permit after 2007. Instead, Ian bought powerful handguns guns for five years while he deteriorated mentally. He carried the weapons, legally protected by shall issue. The police said "There's nothing we can do. Wait for it to get worse."
 

Unfortunately, shall Issue played into the deaths of five Cafe goers.

 

Share this post


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

I can't answer your question about Jack without knowing his age at the time of his trial. What was it?

Miller's age is YOUR rabbit hole. You'll need to provide your own furnishings down there, while you gaily booger the Miller case law. This may help though...

Quote

Uncooperative Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy  November 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. The way I read that, only able bodied males have the 2nd amendment rights.

 

Share this post


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

OMG, never mind.  You are living proof that there is no cure for stupid.

Well, I can present intelligent dialogue, and quality information, IMO, which sometimes debunks rhetoric, disinformation and propaganda. 

 

What if "Shall issue" has negative effects? Jeffie, why are shall-issue laws "associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide."?  Your response should be equally intelligent as my post, not just a personal attack.

Because here's an intelligent study covering fifty states for 25 years, quite recent, about one month old. It shows measurable public health complications with "shall issue." The lead researcher is Seigal, whose 2013 mega-study you know about if you read SAILING ANARCHY.

Quote

December 2017

Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States

American Journal of Public Health (AJPH)

Objectives. To examine the relation of “shall-issue” laws, in which permits must be issued if requisite criteria are met; “may-issue” laws, which give law enforcement officials wide discretion over whether to issue concealed firearm carry permits or not; and homicide rates.

Methods. We compared homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total, firearm, non-firearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year period of 1991 to 2015. We included year and state fixed effects and numerous state-level factors in the analysis.

Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.

Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304057

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That is simply untrue.  MAY ISSUE had fuck all to do with his being denied a gun.  Why do you continue to lie when this is pointed out to you.

Jesus, read your own fucking state gun laws for once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Washington

Especially the top row in red.  Even if WA was a "May issue" state like you so fervently wish for, that would have changed nothing about the Cafe racer incident.  NOTHING.  Repeat that after me slowly...... NUH-THING!

Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Revised Code of Washington Notes
State Permit to Purchase? No No    
Firearm registration? No Partial

RCW 09.41.110(9)(a) and (b)

Retail dealers must record and report all retail pistol sales to local police/sheriff and to state department of licensing.
Owner license required? No No    
Constitutional Right to Bear Arms? Yes Yes WA Constitution art. 1 sec. 24  
Carry permits required? No Yes

RCW 09.41.050CCW Reciprocity

Washington is a "shall-issue" state and will grant concealed carry permits to all applicants who meet the criteria. There are no training requirements.
Open carry? Yes Yes RCW 09.41.050 (in vehicle) Open carry is lawful in Washington without any permit. Open carry of a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal only with a concealed pistol license. Open carry of a loaded long gun in a vehicle is illegal, regardless of CPL possession.
State Preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes

RCW 09.41.290RCW 09.41.300

State Law does not allow more restrictive local laws.
Assault weapons ban? No No    
Magazine capacity rectrictions? No No    
NFA weapons restricted? Partial Partial

RCW 09.41.190RCW 09.41.220RCW 09.41.225RCW 09.41.250(1)(c)

Machine guns and short-barreled shotguns—unless purchased before July 1, 1994—are illegal for non-law-enforcement possession. Suppressors,destructive devices and any other weapons are lawful to possess and use if registered properly with ATF. Short barreled rifles are lawful to possess and use if registered properly with the ATF, as of June 12, 2014.[12]
Peaceable Journey laws? No No

RCW 09.41.050RCW 09.41.060 18 USC § 926A CCW Reciprocity

Federal travel-with-a-firearm laws apply. Some out-of-state CCW licenses valid, otherwise carry must be open or, in a vehicle, unloaded.
Castle Doctrine / Stand your ground law? Not defined - de facto RCW 9A.16.050, RCW 9A.16.110 The Washington State Supreme Court ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[13][14]
Background checks required for private sales? Yes Yes Initiative 594 (2014) Private party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed dealer, who is required by federal law to conduct a background check and keep a record of the sale.

Thanks for the clarifications, Jeff. Actually,  your posts cleary support the benefits of PTP.

Share this post


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


Option One. Ian Stawicki applies to purchase six handguns in a "shall issue" state. He gets the guns. Though quite violent, he meets the scary, minimal criteria for CCP, so he "may not be denied" the legal right to carry  these weapons.

Option Two, Ian Stawicki files for gun purchases in a "may issue" state. The NICS allows the purchases, but his carry permit and attitude  get denied when local authorities present police reports sorting out the violent incidents of Ian Stawicki. 

Even if Ian could legally purchase the guns, yes,  this certainly shows the NICS database needs to be able to sort this guy out. Ergo enforcing this law, as it stands, is not good enough.

 

The collection of the guns of an offender who succeeds in a purchase?? That is now legally possible in WA, I understand.

 

Sigh..... nevermind.  You're an idiot.  I'm tired of explaining stuff to idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That is simply untrue.  MAY ISSUE had fuck all to do with his being denied a gun.  Why do you continue to lie when this is pointed out to you.

Jesus, read your own fucking state gun laws for once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Washington

Especially the top row in red.  Even if WA was a "May issue" state like you so fervently wish for, that would have changed nothing about the Cafe racer incident.  NOTHING.  Repeat that after me slowly...... NUH-THING!

Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Revised Code of Washington Notes
State Permit to Purchase? No No    
Firearm registration? No Partial

RCW 09.41.110(9)(a) and (b)

Retail dealers must record and report all retail pistol sales to local police/sheriff and to state department of licensing.
Owner license required? No No    
Constitutional Right to Bear Arms? Yes Yes WA Constitution art. 1 sec. 24  
Carry permits required? No Yes

RCW 09.41.050CCW Reciprocity

Washington is a "shall-issue" state and will grant concealed carry permits to all applicants who meet the criteria. There are no training requirements.
Open carry? Yes Yes RCW 09.41.050 (in vehicle) Open carry is lawful in Washington without any permit. Open carry of a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal only with a concealed pistol license. Open carry of a loaded long gun in a vehicle is illegal, regardless of CPL possession.
State Preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes

RCW 09.41.290RCW 09.41.300

State Law does not allow more restrictive local laws.
Assault weapons ban? No No    
Magazine capacity rectrictions? No No    
NFA weapons restricted? Partial Partial

RCW 09.41.190RCW 09.41.220RCW 09.41.225RCW 09.41.250(1)(c)

Machine guns and short-barreled shotguns—unless purchased before July 1, 1994—are illegal for non-law-enforcement possession. Suppressors,destructive devices and any other weapons are lawful to possess and use if registered properly with ATF. Short barreled rifles are lawful to possess and use if registered properly with the ATF, as of June 12, 2014.[12]
Peaceable Journey laws? No No

RCW 09.41.050RCW 09.41.060 18 USC § 926A CCW Reciprocity

Federal travel-with-a-firearm laws apply. Some out-of-state CCW licenses valid, otherwise carry must be open or, in a vehicle, unloaded.
Castle Doctrine / Stand your ground law? Not defined - de facto RCW 9A.16.050, RCW 9A.16.110 The Washington State Supreme Court ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[13][14]
Background checks required for private sales? Yes Yes Initiative 594 (2014) Private party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed dealer, who is required by federal law to conduct a background check and keep a record of the sale.

Thanks for the clarifications, Jeff. Actually,  your posts cleary support the benefits of PTP.

Fuck me, but you are such a deliberately obtuse fuckwit.  2 very easy questions for you joey......

1.  YES or NO - Does WA require a permit to own a handgun?  

2.  YES or NO - Does Shall issue have ANY effect on the ability to own a handgun in WA?

Share this post


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

Fuck me, but you are such a deliberately obtuse fuckwit.  2 very easy questions for you joey......

1.  YES or NO - Does WA require a permit to own a handgun?  

2.  YES or NO - Does Shall issue have ANY effect on the ability to own a handgun in WA?

No permit to purchase  is required here, and that made all the difference down at the Cafe Racer.

Shall Issue made a major difference, too, a yes-or-no difference, on Ian's habit of carrying his large caliber handguns all around the U District.

 

Curiously, this incident supports the conclusion of Seigal's 2017 new Shall Issue study. We find more gun homicides with your shall issue fluffery. Any comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beanbeanbean said:

I think the jokal guy might be mentally handicapped if he can't figure out shall and may issue has nothing to do with purchasing firearms. I doubt you will be able to get both his brain cells to cooperate.

Both????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purchases aside, Ian's gun permit was dangerous and unreasonable, because of shall issue standards. I hung out in that neighborhood. Ian shot a bluegrass player I knew named Drew. Shot him dead in the head. Shall issue sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, beanbeanbean said:

Ohh look at him dance around. The saints could have really used you in last night's game to help move those goal posts.

 

Still doesn't explain how shall vs may was the cause of the shooting. Are you saying if it was illegal to carry a firearm he would not have MURDERED someone? If only murder was illegal.... Oh wait. 

 

Come on boy use both those brain cells!

 

He Bean. Hi Jeffie. 

 With Gorsuch on  the SC, why did they not revue the outdoor gun  rights denied to Peruta in San Diego 9n 2017? I suggest that the Cafe Racer situation in Seattle shows why, typically.

Share this post


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

 With Gorsuch on  the SC

Err, so what? Last I checked, he is only 1 vote.

Share this post


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

We have indoor vs outdoor? 

You are way behind, but welcome here. The Peruta decision, in the Ninth Circuit, stated that outdoor gun rights are to be determined. That the discussion of outdoor gun rights has not begun. They called out the SAF hyperbole, which Jeffie says is set law. I posted the verbiage and link three or four times, mate. 

Quote

Peruta v. California

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Maybe you couldn''t follow the recent action. Basically,  Peruta's  problem became REAL history. The English had banned weapons in public in 1285 with the Statute of Northampton, which rolled into three U.S. state constitutions. The English Law in the days of the FF, as quoted from Blackstone's four volume summary, restricted the guns of the  public, and even the guns of the militia.

Hamilton was a Boston Selectman. He applied for and received an exemption from the law to train their militia under muster. Bpm57, you fell for a urban myth, unless you can present some legal baseline for outdoor gun mayhem.

Quote

Assuming arguendo that the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home,2 see

--Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 431 (3d Cir. 2013) (declining “to definitively declare that the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home”);

--Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (same);

--Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 876 (4th Cir. 2013) (same);

--Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (same),

 

the proper standard of review “depends on the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right.” Heller v. D.C. (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 682 (4th Cir. 2010)).

 

Share this post


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

Err, so what? Last I checked, he is only 1 vote.

Jeffie maintains that Gorsuch will turn this thing around, and reverse the NY SAFE Act etc.

Then Gorsuch wouldn't touch Peruta. The SC sent internal Peruta notes back and forth from July to October of 2017, every Thursday... then passed on discussion.

Share this post


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

Basically,  Peruta's  problem became REAL history.

Read SAILING ANARCHY. Pooplius was cheering the partial Ninth Circuit as it gave Peruta outdoor gunz. Pooplius reported a "speed bump"--the full Ninth decided to look at it. In time, some of them came back with eyes wide open--they had read Patrick J Charles' systematic layout of the progression of the actual English law. Gulp. Scalia had fallen for the fiction of Joyce Lee Malcolm.

Five outdoor gun rights cases have been passed up by the SC. This is why:

The Unbroken Timeline of Gun Control: the Evolution of the Statute of Northampton

      Each footnote here goes to legal text, unambiguously and immediately, via this link:

        http://urbanlawjournal.com/files/2013/12/Charles-Northampton-FINAL12.20.13.pdf    )

(1285 AD) first formal weapons control statutes formed in England

(1325) a pattern emerged, of attacks and armed  intimidation upon both scholars, and court justices

1329 Statute of Northampton was recorded

(1419) “no one, of whatever condition he be, go armed . . . , or carry arms, by day or night, except the vadlets of the great lord of the land . . . , and the serjeants-at-arms . . . , and the officers of the City, and such persons as shall come in their company in aid of them, at their command, for saving and maintaining the peace.”21 

(1576) Yet may an affray be without worde or blow given as if a man shall sh[o]w himself furnished with armour or weapon, which is not usually worne and borne, it will strike a feare to others that be not armed as he is: and therefore both the Statute of Northampton . . . made against the wearing of Armour and weapon and the Writte thereupon grounded, doe speake of it, by the words, effrey del pays , an, in terrorem populi .23  Source: Lombarde

(1602) If any person whatsoever (except the Queenes servants and ministers in her presence, or in executing her precepts, or other offices, or such as shall assist them: and except it be upon Hue and Crie made to keep the peace, and that in places where acts against the Peace do happen) shall be so bold, as to go, or ride armed, by night, or by day, in Faires, Markets, or any other places: then any Constable, or any other of the saide Officers, may take such Armour from him, for the Queenes use, & may also commit him to the Gaole.  And therefore, it shall be good in this behalf, for the Officers to stay and arrest all such persons as they shall find to carry Dags or Pistols, or to be appareled with privie coates, or doublets: as by the proclamation [of Queen Elizabeth I] . . . .24  WILLIAM LAMBARDE, THE DUTIES OF CONSTABLES, BORSHOLDERS, TYTHINGMEN, AND SUCH OTHER LOW AND LAY MINISTERS OF THE PEACE 13-14 (London, Thomas Wight 1602).   

(1619) If any person shall ride or goe armed offensively, before the Justices, or any other the Kings officers; Or in Faires, Markets, or elsewhere (by night, or by day) in affray of the Kings people (the Sheriffe, and other the Kings Officers, and) every Justice of the peace . . . may cause them to be stayed and arrested, & may binde all such to the peace, or good behaviour . . . And the said Justices of the P. (as also every Constable) may seize & take away their Armour, and other weapons . . . .  So of such as shall carry any Daggs or Pistols that be charged: or that shall goe appareled with privie Coats or Doublets . . . .  And yet the Kings servants in his presence; and Sheriffes and their officers, in executing the Kings processe, and all others in pursuing the Hue and Crie, where any felony, or other offences be done, may lawfully beare Armour or weapons.28

(Coke, 1644) (“But he cannot assemble force, though he be extreamly threatned, to goe with him to Church, or market, or any other place, but that is prohibited by this Act.”). 

(1660)  “Any (except the Kings Officers and their companie doing their service) riding or going armed, or bringing force in affray of the people, are to be imprisoned, and lose their armour.”49 

(1736) “may take away Arms from such who ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People, and may apprehend the Persons, and carry them, and their Arms, before a Justice of the Peace.”62 

(1774) “Justices of the Peace . . . may apprehend any Person who shall go or ride armed with unusual and offensive Weapons, in an Affray, or among any great Concourse of the People . . . .”61 

George Webb’s 1736 treatise, published four decades earlier, similarly drew upon Dalton (1618), stipulating that constables  (1736) “may take away Arms from such who ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People, and may apprehend the Persons, and carry them, and their Arms, before a Justice of the Peace.”62 

(1789 Blackstone) [t]he offence of riding or going armed , with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton . . . .”14  

(1792)  “all affrayers, rioters, disturbers, or breakers of the peace, and such as shall ride or go armed offensively, to the fear or terror of the good citizens of this Commonwealth.”72 

Three states adopted the Statute of Northampton wholesale. North Carolina began its statute by listing the exceptions— government officials in performance of their duty and the hue and cry—then stipulated that no one shall bring (1792) “force in an affray of peace, nor to go nor ride armed by day nor by night, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the King’s Justices, or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere . . . .”73 

(1800) riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land, and is prohibited by statute upon pain of forfeiture of the arms.”63 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, beanbeanbean said:

What? Revue? Like a music show? Outdoor gun rights? We have indoor vs outdoor?  You suggest? You think that Seattle has something to do with the SC not reviewing the case? You really are handicapped.

I can explain the problem a third way if it will help. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Then Gorsuch wouldn't touch Peruta. The SC sent internal Peruta notes back and forth from July to October of 2017, every Thursday... then passed on discussion.

Hmm, who ever knew that Gorsuch was supposed have the magical ability to _force_ the leftist part of the court to take a case. You do realize that they vote to hear a case, right?

As for ignoring it, I guess you missed the Thomas/Gorsuch comments on not hearing Peruta.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-894

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wtf? Dude take your meds. You were talking out your ass about shall vs may issue states having some effect on the cafe racer murders. It doesn't and going off on some tangent about English laws from a century ago doesn't change that.

Here we go.  I can explain the problem a third way if it will help. 

You like your guns, and feel they protect you. You support CCP activity. Please comment on the empirical evidence that these behaviors INCREASE our homicides,  showing that "may issue" is safer.

Quote

Objectives. To examine the relation of “shall-issue” laws, in which permits must be issued if requisite criteria are met; “may-issue” laws, which give law enforcement officials wide discretion over whether to issue concealed firearm carry permits or not; and homicide rates.

 

Methods. We compared homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total, firearm, non-firearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year period of 1991 to 2015. We included year and state fixed effects and numerous state-level factors in the analysis.

 

Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.

Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.  http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304057

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 4:08 PM, bpm57 said:

Well, you have had to be told what the British were trying to do when the revolution became a shooting war.

The British were reacting to Samuel Adams' hijinks. Sam had run the bell in the Portsmough N.H. Town Square, and had charged up the locals up to take down the local armory (a mere corporal's command of ten men).  They succeeded, and scored 55 barrels of powder. It was reported to the crown, of course. Gen Gage received orders to recover the powder. Gage recovered 4X the amount taken by Adams.

In the background was rampant smuggling, and proud state militias which had fought well FOR the British six years before, and had been rewarded by having major tax debts fully nullified. Many feel the Colonists were spoiled, under-taxed, and that the smugling was under-policed by the states. 

Taken in context, the idea that gun (or powder) confiscation itself triggered the war is neither mature, nor well-supported. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 9:49 PM, beanbeanbean said:

The problem is you don't have empirical evidence. For every article you site showing an increase I can give you one for a decrease. On this I am more then willing to concede that it does not make it safer, in the same breath I will say it doesn't make it unsafe. AZ went with Constitutional carry and it was going to turn into the wild west, it didn't. While I don't see it making it safer, it didn't make it more dangerous.

We have had a HUGE change in CCW laws and no major uptick in violence, actually the opposite. So to say it is worse now than 2002 or 1995 is incorrect.

 

And this still has nothing to do with the original point that shall vs may issue had anything to do with the cafe racer murders, but you keep jogging past that point since it appears even you now realize that was a disingenuous statement.

Concur with all.  However you will NEVER get joey to admit that his "shall issue" statement was disingenuous.  He read somewhere that the cafe racer incident was all due to shall issue and you will never dislodge him from that stance, no matter how many facts you throw at him.  I have to say however that its mildly amusing watching him twist and spin.... mildly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 9:49 AM, beanbeanbean said:

The problem is you don't have empirical evidence. For every article you site showing an increase I can give you one for a decrease.

No, you can't. But I hope you try. Your best researchers are now discredited and un published.

Johhny come lately wasn't here in 2013 and 2014 as I forced the best, most currently avail gun violence research down the throats of the SA Gun Club, full text, one by one. Soon these appeared in court cases which won, as your bogus scholarship was denounced by the National Research Council. 18 of 19 experts roasted Lott for 328 pages in 2004. Yet Pooplius reported a draw, and avoided Donohue's two convincing follow-ups showing CCP brings increases in violent crime. Cites available.

 

Quote

We have had a HUGE change in CCW laws and no major uptick in violence, actually the opposite. So to say it is worse now than 2002 or 1995 is incorrect.

Welcome to Political Anarchy, where we cite such claims when challenged. What's your source?

Regardless of your anecdote, Segal's increases don't reflect recent AZ rumors, they document a CCP problem covering fifty states over  25 years.

Quote

And this still has nothing to do with the original point that shall vs may issue had anything to do with the cafe racer murders, but you keep jogging past that point since it appears even you now realize that was a disingenuous statement.

Ian's father housed Ian. He planned to remove Ian's six big handguns. The police cautioned him, they cited the slam-dunk "shall issue" permit as Ian's legal right to have them. Ian's father did not oppose the "right". Amidst the trail of smashed electronics, the law allowed an extension of the dangerous gun permit.

When Ian got tossed from a band, then a cafe, he wigged out and shot five people dead.  Ian left at least one survivor a real mess and shot an acquaintance. Bean, Jeffie,, the standards for shall issue should have been much higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Concur with all.  However you will NEVER get joey to admit that his "shall issue" statement was disingenuous.  He read somewhere that the cafe racer incident was all due to shall issue and you will never dislodge him from that stance, no matter how many facts you throw at him.  I have to say however that its mildly amusing watching him twist and spin.... mildly.  

It didn't have to play out that way. The father has regrets now, and in his words feels he should have been "more forceful."  

TIMELINE

  • 2007 Ian's mental problems become openly violent
  • 2008 Heller grants Ian the right to a gun in the home
  • 2008 and 2010 Misdemeanor assault charges against Ian dismissed. GF and brother won;t testify.
  • 2010 Gun culture hooplah extends to McDonald, and is loudly celebrated
  • ~2007 -2010 Ian buys moar gunz and renews gun permit
  • ~2011 Guided by the Seattle Police Dept, Ian's Father swallows hard and accepts the legal gun rights of his crazy son
  • 2012 Cafe Racer Mass Murder, with legal gunz.
  • Goodbye to Drew, who was a neat kid.

And Jeffie Poo, being a finger-pointer you blame the family as well. But the problem became that the father had respected the gun "rights" of his son, who was protected by Shall Issue, Heller, McDonald, and your gun culture.

Your brilliant position has you supporting the father's right  to deny the "rights" of his son. The father now agrees with you.

 

Share this post


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

It didn't have to play out that way. The father has regrets now, and in his words feels he should have been "more forceful." 

 

Just think Joe, if any of his DV incidents that resulted in police reports had been followed up on, he would of been disqualified. But lets not talk about that. Everything is either the fault of WA state law or an inanimate object.

Share this post


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

Johhny come lately wasn't here in 2013 and 2014 as I forced the best, most currently avail gun violence research down the throats of the SA Gun Club, full text, one by one.

Ummm, no you di'int.  You see.... we have this amazing technology that we use as an anti-jocal pain-inducing device.  It works really really well.  Just saying.

mouse-scroll-wheel.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 7:12 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Ummm, no you di'int.  You see.... we have this amazing technology that we use as an anti-jocal pain-inducing device.  It works really really well.  Just saying.

mouse-scroll-wheel.jpg

You admit to active ignorance. You had to choose to scroll past the scientifically presented empirical evidence. Ignoring the facts, are we?

Then, post- MacDonald, the same unheeded empirical evidence bit you in the higher courts.

You toasted their imaginary reversals Jeffie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 11:07 AM, bpm57 said:

 

Just think Joe, if any of his DV incidents that resulted in police reports had been followed up on, he would of been disqualified. But lets not talk about that. Everything is either the fault of WA state law or an inanimate object.

Just think, if Ian Staewicki had moved to Zanzibar, or if had he had been grabbed by space aliens, the Cafe Racer catastrophe also would have been averted.

Both our hypotheticals aside, "shall issue" allowed this guy a gun, when the police, the GF with the broken nose, the family, the band, and the cafe knew that both his Heller rights and his CCP rights were flat-out dangerous.

The bar of Shall Issue is a shitty idea because of situations like Ian.

Share this post


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

Both our hypotheticals aside, "shall issue" allowed this guy a gun,

Sigh.  Once again:

No,

Shall

issue

did 

not 

have 

anything

to 

do 

with

his

ability

to

buy

a

gun

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sigh.  Once again:

No,

Shall

issue

did 

not 

have 

anything

to 

do 

with

his

ability

to

buy

a

gun

.

Shall Issue allowed Ian, a violent nutcase, to pack guns all around the U DIstrict. I object.

His Shall Issue CCP make his loaded guns legal travelling in Ian's vehicle, from Ellensberg to Seattle. I object again.

I mention it because shall issue's acceptance and existence  made a deadly difference to Drew.

 

Share this post


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

You admit to active ignorance. You had to choose to scroll past the scientifically presented empirical evidence.

And they are always right..?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And they are always right..?

 

No. Like historians, researchers crawl towards better knowledge, which, bit by bit, improves the baseline for policy. 

It must give you pause to question the body of gun violence research, since you can't equal it.

Share this post


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

No. Like historians, researchers crawl towards better knowledge, which, bit by bit, improves the baseline for policy. 

It must give you pause to question the body of gun violence research, since you can't equal it.

I could equal synthetic Conneciticut or synthetic Missouri quite easily.

I'd just do what the researchers did: create imaginary states that behave in ways I assume they will behave. If I want to class it up a bit, I hang it over a urinal so peers can review it. Then the urine-scented thing proves that my assumptions rule!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I could equal synthetic Conneciticut or synthetic Missouri quite easily.

No, you can't. 

1. Show us synthetic Missouri. Seriously. Is that in Post 35 of the Missouri Background Check thread, with Pooplius cooking the books for an unsuspecting Sean? You are such a dummy you even  linked me to the misbehavior. Poisonings and strangulations didn't go up, just gun murders, so you confused the hard evidence (sixty extra gun murders per year) with violent crime when it suited you. In the case of CCP, you ignore violent crime increases, because that suits you.

10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'd just do what the researchers did: create imaginary states that behave in ways I assume they will behave.

2. Please proceed. Then try to get that Pooplius garbage published. Present to us some body of work, ANY body or work from your friends, covering research or history.

 

10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If I want to class it up a bit, I hang it over a urinal so peers can review it. Then the urine-scented thing proves that my assumptions rule!

3. Gotcha. We have a running classic here. PA at its best. Our topic is the quality of scholarship in play... 

Enter McDonald vs. USA, which featured a startled group of professional historians. They named the names behind the progression of law brief falsehoods which is The Standard Model. Within this scholarship, Patrick J. Charles concisely presents the honest context of each pf Heller's disjointed.cherry picked historical examples.

 

 

Standard Model urinal.JPG

Share this post


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

If you can not use the already cited sources of violent crime in the US going down and the number of fireRms increasing, I can't help you. I'm not going to spoon feed you common knowledge.

 

And you still are on the loosing side of the CCW debate and continue to fail how shall issue caused the cafe racer murders. 

If they had "no issue" CCW he still could have shot those people, CCW had zero bearing on it and the lack of support from your merry little band of pussy hats should let you know you stand alone on this illogical piss up a rope idea.

It's a scumbag package deal. It takes a village, it takes validation, it takes a philosophy backed by laws to be big like Ian.You guys prefer the immediate gratification of street violence to due process of law. The SAF and CATO accomodate you by fabricating bogus research and fabricated history. Gunz r us, ready to roll legally, a very American setup which exceeds the safe, established cultural parameters of castle doctrine.

Along comes Ian Stawicki, who buys into it. Two or three guns are not enough. Leaving the guns home is not enough. Others have fears, so his own fears are justified. He is a human and has his natural "rights," Ian is good to go.

If the village stood on non-violence, "no issue" would follow naturally. We don't know the depths of Ian's depravity. But he had quite a village to support his packing of the damn guns. Shall Issue is a flag. It's just one typical link in your violent chain. And your elk add the "lethal" to the "violent."

 

 

Shall issue was legally involved at the Cafe Racer, and will soon be legally involved elsewhere. The research updated to the NAS in 2007 verified this probablilty with Donohue I. He got even cleaner results with Donohue II around 2012. Now Seigal, a known and trusted researcher, finds the same on a national scale over 25 years.

The empirical evidence is that CCP increases the murder rate. And you boys reject it all not with facts, quality research, or vetted history, but with sweeping generalities, and Jeffie's fluffy rationalizations. Carry on.

Share this post


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

If you can not use the already cited sources of violent crime in the US going down and the number of fireRms increasing, I can't help you. I'm not going to spoon feed you common knowledge.

Maybe this is the seventh time I have addressed this. But I'll be nice.

Yes, crime has gone way down since the peak crime wave in the mid-nineties. Sociologists name about seven factors (cocaine diminished, baby boomers aged, the 911 phone system was effective, ER's got better, even some possible relief from lead poisoning played in).  Each has been intelligently approached on our forums. But NO SOCIAL SCIENCE EXPERTS add CCP or gun popularity as being a factor. Only gun guys make that claim, a pro nunc, ipso facto fallacy

Their mantra was more guns, less crime. The NAS debunked that author in 2004, and he morphed from being  leading edge academia (in the field of epidemiology) to being a pariah on Fox News.

 

Quote

A LOTT OF LIES: SHOOTING DOWN THE GUN LOBBY’S FAVORITE “ACADEMIC”

http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/

 

Share this post


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

Shall issue was legally involved at the Cafe Racer, and will soon be legally involved elsewhere. The research updated to the NAS in 2007 verified this probablilty with Donohue I. He got even cleaner results with Donohue II around 2012. Now Seigal, a known and trusted researcher, finds the same on a national scale over 25 years.

No, joke boy - Shall issue or CCW had no bearing on whether those murders happened.  Again, let's assume you lived in a "May issue" state and Stanfucki was denied a CCW license.  All is good with the world now, right?  Wrong!  It would not prevent him from still owning those guns or purchasing moar gunz because he didn't have a criminal record to prevent him. 

So let's say all this is fact and he was denied a CCW license.  Do you honestly think for one moment that a lack of a CCW license would have stopped him from getting into his car, driving to the cafe and shooting those people?  I'm pretty sure a madman bent on murder is not going to be deterred because the law says you need a CCW to carry a loaded gun in a vehicle. 

I swear you have the logical reasoning capability of one of the melting ice cubes in my glass of scotch right now. Just saying. 

And I sincerely apologize in advance to melting ice cubes everywhere.......   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, beanbeanbean said:
On 1/21/2018 at 11:20 AM, jocal505 said:

No, you can't. But I hope you try. Your best researchers are now discredited and un published.

Johhny come lately wasn't here in 2013 and 2014 as I forced the best, most currently avail gun violence research down the throats of the SA Gun Club, full text, one by one. Soon these appeared in court cases which won, as your bogus scholarship was denounced by the National Research Council. 18 of 19 experts roasted Lott for 328 pages in 2004. Yet Pooplius reported a draw, and avoided Donohue's two convincing follow-ups showing CCP brings increases in violent crime. Cites available.

 

Welcome to Political Anarchy, where we cite such claims when challenged. What's your source?

Regardless of your anecdote, Segal's increases don't reflect recent AZ rumors, they document a CCP problem covering fifty states over  25 years.

Ian's father housed Ian. He planned to remove Ian's six big handguns. The police cautioned him, they cited the slam-dunk "shall issue" permit as Ian's legal right to have them. Ian's father did not oppose the "right". Amidst the trail of smashed electronics, the law allowed an extension of the dangerous gun permit.

When Ian got tossed from a band, then a cafe, he wigged out and shot five people dead.  Ian left at least one survivor a real mess and shot an acquaintance. Bean, Jeffie,, the standards for shall issue should have been much higher.

Of all the delusional, self important BS you've spewed over the years, Jokey - this is the best.  You are still conflating the issuance of a CCW permit with the legal permission to own a firearm.   The two are related, but, completely different.  What you propose is akin to saying if you cut off your arm, the diabetic neuropathy won't make your toes fall off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, joke boy - Shall issue or CCW had no bearing on whether those murders happened.  Again, let's assume you lived in a "May issue" state and Stanfucki was denied a CCW license.  All is good with the world now, right?  Wrong!  It would not prevent him from still owning those guns or purchasing moar gunz because he didn't have a criminal record to prevent him. 

So let's say all this is fact and he was denied a CCW license.  Do you honestly think for one moment that a lack of a CCW license would have stopped him from getting into his car, driving to the cafe and shooting those people?  I'm pretty sure a madman bent on murder is not going to be deterred because the law says you need a CCW to carry a loaded gun in a vehicle. 

I swear you have the logical reasoning capability of one of the melting ice cubes in my glass of scotch right now. Just saying. 

And I sincerely apologize in advance to melting ice cubes everywhere.......   

LEGAL GUNZ DID IT, BASED ON INDISCRETE STANDARDS. I'm just stating some dangerous factors, as they played out. The existing laws were enforced just fine, and it was ugly.

Here's the unique story behind the hero, whom we can call LA. from Cape Cod. He had lost a brother in the WTC disaster, and in his bitterness swore that he would ACT ACT ACT if he ever saw any disaster going down.

Stawicki came in  with gunz, though he had been tossed from the pub. The waitress asked him to leave. Stanfucky acted with headshots from behind, the first bodies blocking an in-swinging door in an el-shaped room. 

Larry bolted for a barstool, using it as a shield, within view of the shooting. The pre-conditioning for action had him charge the gunman and aim the stool at him. Larry said at that time his brain went "Hey wait a minute, I need that stool." But to dodge the stool the gunman ran to the opposite el angle, and men forced the door open so that three patrons escaped.

 

 

WTF? Shall Issue my ass. What was this guy doing with a CCP permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 8:14 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Do you honestly think for one moment that a lack of a CCW license would have stopped him from getting into his car, driving to the cafe and shooting those people?  I'm pretty sure a madman bent on murder is not going to be deterred because the law says you need a CCW to carry a loaded gun in a vehicle. 

Ian went on foot and via the loser cruiser that day, until shooting his way into a BMW ride. He wasn't right, but shall issue allowed him to pollute the sidewalks and buses with legal gunz, when not driving with loaded gunz, legally. See sany problem here?

Ian "shall not be denied" his CCW permit until involuntarily committed for fourteen days or longer. 

Share this post


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

Ian went on foot and via the loser cruiser that day, until shooting his way into a BMW ride. He wasn't right, but shall issue allowed him to pollute the sidewalks and buses with legal gunz, when not driving with loaded gunz, legally. See sany problem here?

Ian "shall not be denied" his CCW permit until involuntarily committed for fourteen days or longer. 

Jesus fucking keyrist, jocal, but you're a complete dumbfuck.  I say Boy, you're not the sharpest spoon in the drawer, are you?  

If you honestly believe this violent person intent on murder that day would have been dissuaded from doing his "thang" by walking the streets with an illegally concealed weapon because he was denied a CCW permit - then you are TRULY Dumber than a bag of hammers.  Even Meli is your intellectual superior.  That alone should cause you to consider self-murder.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff and Bean, Ian had not just gunz, but a renewed CCP permit, and support from the SAF. Does that sound right to you?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Jeff and Bean, Ian had not just gunz, but a renewed CCP permit, and support from the SAF. Does that sound right to you?

No it doesn't sound right, but that's an issue with local LEO and prosecutors not doing their jobs and family not pressing charges.  The renewed ccp had nothing to with the murders.  He could and would have murdered them even if he had been denied.  If his level of previous violence had been properly addressed by the authorities and his family - he could have had his gunz taken away altogether and that likely WOULD have prevented the murders.

Again the blood of those people are not on whether there was a Shall Issue law or not.  The blood of those people are squarely on the hands of the family who did not push for action and LEO who took a tepid response to his violence and didn't prosecute him.  The fact is, for the 10,000th time, without a felony conviction - he would have been able to purchase gunz and no amount of handwringing over whether he had a CCW license or not would not have prevented him from taking those gunz to the cafe and killing people.  Period dot.  End of discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No it doesn't sound right, but that's an issue with local LEO and prosecutors not doing their jobs and family not pressing charges.  The renewed ccp had nothing to with the murders.  He could and would have murdered them even if he had been denied.  If his level of previous violence had been properly addressed by the authorities and his family - he could have had his gunz taken away altogether and that likely WOULD have prevented the murders.

Again the blood of those people are not on whether there was a Shall Issue law or not.  The blood of those people are squarely on the hands of the family who did not push for action and LEO who took a tepid response to his violence and didn't prosecute him.  The fact is, for the 10,000th time, without a felony conviction - he would have been able to purchase gunz and no amount of handwringing over whether he had a CCW license or not would not have prevented him from taking those gunz to the cafe and killing people.  Period dot.  End of discussion.

No matter how you look at it the responsiblity for reducing gun problems rests with the people who own guns. 

Its up to you to make sure that the system is working 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No matter how you look at it the responsiblity for reducing gun problems rests with the people who own guns. 

Its up to you to make sure that the system is working 

I am assuming this is sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...

you could reduce gun injuries by having few guns in public hands.

you could do this by requiring a gun owner to have insurance.

this insurance would reduce the burden on the health care sector.

by increasing the cost of ownership , insurance, fewer people would chose to own them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

No...

you could reduce gun injuries by having few guns in public hands.

you could do this by requiring a gun owner to have insurance.

this insurance would reduce the burden on the health care sector.

by increasing the cost of ownership , insurance, fewer people would chose to own them 

That doesn't sound very constitutional to me.

Let's try some similar ones out and see if the same logic applies.

  • If we forced licensing, registration, and mandatory insurance on journalists and  news orgs - we would have fewer of them and only the kind we want.  Fortunately, supporters of free speech and the Press can say But...... "Fuck you, 1st Amendment!"
  • if we forced licensing, registration, and mandatory insurance on Churches - we would have fewer of them and they wouldn't cause so many problems like they do now.  But......Fuck you, 1st Amendment!
  • If we increased the cost of voting by requiring IQ tests, photo ID, thumbprints and retina scans in order to vote - we wouldn't have so many idiot voters choosing shitty politicians.  But...... Fuck you, 15th Amendment.

Are you seeing how this works now????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry...to drive a car you need insurance , this insurance prevents accident damage from being transfered to the tax payer or innocent parties. 

guns are no different.

i dont own a gun..

.im not happy paying for gun related damage.

gun owners must pay , insurance  would achieve this and reduce gun ownership

only sportsman, hunters and people who need a gun would be prepared to pay 

These folks would not be harmed by insurance cost ...others, who are accidental or casual gun owners would throw thier guns away to save money 

Fewer guns in society 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The renewed ccp had nothing to with the murders. 

You don't know that. Your statenent is unsupported fluff...since the renewed CCP contributed to the danger, every day.

SHALL ISSUE. The skids were greased to GRANT this sick person a weapons permit (a step in the WRONG direction). Do not feed the bears, Jeffie.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, beanbeanbean said:

"unsupported fluff...since the renewed CCP contributed to the danger"

               ^                                                                             ^

Calls unspupported fluff, then states unsupported fluff, hypocrisy much?

Maybe your eye sight is going... HE ALREADY HAD THE FUCKING GUN. His permit had nothing to do with it. His permit did not allow him to shoot anyone, do you understand? His permit did not allow him to shoot anyone, do you understand? His permit did not allow him to shoot anyone, do you understand?

The "skids were greased" when he purchased the gun. His permit did not allow him to shoot anyone do you understand?

Ian's CCP contributed to, and encouraged, his daily packing . It gave him legal status, while he was shooting at my pals. Shall Issue only exacerbated a bad situation here. May Issue would have clipped Ian's wings a bit, eh?

Is Ian your buddy? I don't think the guy qualified as CCP material. Do you? Would you want him in your neighborhood, packing legally? Do you see how this problem could be repeated elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, beanbeanbean said:

"It gave him legal status, while he was shooting at my pals."

Keep repeating this out load to yourself. You think that CCW gave him legal status to shoot people? Wrong

How would may issue "clip his wings"? Go step by step how him shooting someone would not be able to be accomplished  with out CCW?

Do people not drive because they have a suspended license? Did dylann Roof or many of the other mass killers just not shoot up places because they didn't have a permit?

You have lost this argument, none of your gun grabbers are standing behind you because you are wrong. Repeat it with us "his permit did not allow him to shoot anyone."

Let's review. He broke his girlfriend's nose with his fist, then went down and renewed his gun permit. Shall Issue rocks.

What was this character doing with a gun permit? Shall Issue is the answer.

Share this post


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

Let's review. He broke his girlfriend's nose with his fist, then went down and renewed his gun permit. Shall Issue rocks.

Its almost like something should of happened but didn't, yet WA state CCW laws are somehow the issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 5:47 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're not part of the gun community?

How do you tell who is a member?

But I make no part of my living from the sale and manufacture of guns. Never have.

"Do something" means the same thing over and over and over again. Sorry, still not interested in bans or confiscation programs. Find another "something."

It's not up to Wofsey to find your constructive place in all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 3:18 PM, mikewof said:
On 1/4/2018 at 2:34 PM, bpm57 said:

Really? What do you consider the 1st gun control law?

The first probably came in before we were a country, as edict from The Crown, and was responsible for the Second.

The Statute of Northampton, for Old English law, in 1328. (That law was sketched in 1285.)  Word for word, the exceptions below are found in the NC state law of 1794. The law itself is presented in three state constitutions. Blackstone's legal summary concluded that this law applied within the English law applied to colonists.

Quote
  • Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)

Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King's pleasure.

 

 And that the King's justices in their presence, sheriffs, and other ministers in their bailiwicks, lords of franchises, and their bailiffs in the same, and mayors and bailiffs of cities and boroughs, within the same cities and boroughs, and borough-holders, constables, and wardens of the peace within their wards, shall have power to execute this act.

 

And that the justices assigned, at their coming down into the country, shall have power to enquire how such officers and lords have exercised their offices in this case, and to punish them whom they find that have not done that which pertained to their office.

 

Share this post


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

The Statute of Northampton

I knew we had gone far to long without this cut-n-paste.

"But here it should be remembered, that in this country the constitution guarranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify the people unnecessarily."
Charles Humphreys, A COMPENDIUM OF THE COMMON LAW IN FORCE IN
KENTUCKY 482 (1822)

“Suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them, this English statute, or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it.” Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, 359-60 (1833).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2018 at 2:35 PM, bpm57 said:
On 1/10/2018 at 5:33 PM, jocal505 said:

 But believe some made up shit anway. You are similar to others in the gun  culture I've encountered, bpm.

Yeah, the Lautenberg Amendment is "made up shit". I guess I need to find an approved historian to explain it.

Thanks for the spelling correction. What is your point or presentation, if any?

Share this post


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

I knew we had gone far to long without this cut-n-paste. (the text to the Statute of Northampton, which makes you mute.)

"But here it should be remembered, that in this country the constitution guarranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify the people unnecessarily."
Charles Humphreys, A COMPENDIUM OF THE COMMON LAW IN FORCE IN
KENTUCKY 482 (1822)

“Suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them, this English statute, or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it.” Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, 359-60 (1833).

Joyce Malcolm took your position. I welcome the discussion.

The question (spotted by Dead Eye Dick) is this: is terror required to break a weapons law? Need one intimidate to violate the right to a weapon in public? It has grounds for intelligent discussion. And, whoah Nellie, Dead Eye Dick has scholarly support from law brief writers. My experience is that when a guy googles the article title, one gets a sourceable pdf. Let's rumble, young man. Here is your keenest ammo, found in the cesspool that is law brief manipulation:

Quote

Malcolm’s incomplete research and false characterization of the Statute have had far reaching implications in Standard Model scholarship, which has proved detrimental in maintaining an objective historical account of the legality of going armed in public.

 

For a list of works misled by or agreeing with Malcolm’s unsupported conclusions on the Statute,

  • see David T. Hardy, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: The Present as Interface of Past and Future, 3 NORTHEASTERN U. L.J. 199, 205 (2011) (relying on Malcolm’s research for contemporary legal analysis on the Statute of Northampton);
  • Kopel, supra note 372, at 1347 (same); David B. Kopel, The Licensing of Concealed Handguns for Lawful Protection: Support from Five State Supreme Courts, 68 ALB. L. REV. 305, 317 (2005) (same);
  • David B. Kopel and Clayton Cramer, State Court Standards of Review for the Right to the Keep and Bear Arms, 50 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 1113, 1127, 1133-34 (2010) (same);
  • Carlton F.W. Larson, Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit, 60 HASTINGS L.J. 1371, 1378-79 (2009) (questioning whether the Statute of Northampton was ever enforced);
  • Nelson Lund, The Second Amendment, Heller, and Originalist Jurisprudence, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1343, 1363-64 (2009) (relying on Malcolm’s research for contemporary legal analysis on the Statute of Northampton);
  • Marshall, supra note 294, at 716-17 (same).
  • Eugene Volokh does not cite to Malcolm, but still may have been influenced by Malcolm either directly or by other Standard Model writers that relied on her work.
  • See Eugene Volokh, The First and Second Amendments, 109 COLUM. L. REV. SIDEBAR 97, 101 (2009) [hereinafter Volokh, The First and Second Amendments]; Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1481 (2009) [hereinafter Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms].

 

Quote

Debunking Malcolm's  terror requirement:

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

Share this post


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

Thanks for the spelling correction. What is your point or presentation, if any?

Since you went back a month to find that quote, try reading the messages around it. Maybe it will refresh your memory.

Although your claim that the Lautenberg Amendment was "made up shit" is something you might want to forget.

Share this post


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

Debunking Malcolm's  terror requirement:

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

Oh, look, its Joe's favorite lawyer. I thought only proper historians with PhDs were allowed to write about law?

Any court briefs from the "winning" side that cite this work?

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

(the text to the Statute of Northampton, which makes you mute.)

I give you a citation good enough to get you to the page on google books, but you clearly didn't read it.

"But here it should be remembered, that in this country the constitution guarranties to all persons the right to bear arms; then it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify the people unnecessarily."
Charles Humphreys, A COMPENDIUM OF THE COMMON LAW IN FORCE IN
KENTUCKY 482 (1822)

You want to know what comes before that line, Joe? The Statute of Northampton.

The book was written in 1822, you can't blame CATO, GOA, SAF, NRA, etc for it.

Share this post


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

Since you went back a month to find that quote, try reading the messages around it. Maybe it will refresh your memory.

Although your claim that the Lautenberg Amendment was "made up shit" is something you might want to forget.

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say about Lautenberg. It's unclear whether you are for it or against it. You have not even touched on its subject matter.

I'm no longer sure your non-conversations are welcome.

Share this post


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

I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say about Lautenberg. It's unclear whether you are for it or against it. You have not even touched on its subject matter.

I'm no longer sure your non-conversations are welcome.

Sorry Joe, I'm not going to go back a month and spend the time quoting myself and you in some hope that you would get the point.

I guess you will just have to live with the idea that my feelings about a 20 year old law that was backed up by  a SCOTUS ruling are unimportant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Sorry Joe, I'm not going to go back a month and spend the time quoting myself and you in some hope that you would get the point.

I guess you will just have to live with the idea that my feelings about a 20 year old law that was backed up by  a SCOTUS ruling are unimportant.

 

You dropped the name Lautenberg, but can't discuss it, identify the content, or even describe its importance? And you did the same thing with Wrenn[, while thugging. I'm getting the picture here.

Share this post


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

Joe, you probably are going to want to continue your tradition of not actually reading court opinions.

Otherwise People v Chairez might make your head explode.

Sure thing, I'll just read the thing, because Pooplius wants me to. Where have you been hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 2:34 PM, bpm57 said:

Although your claim that the Lautenberg Amendment was "made up shit" is something you might want to forget.

I never would have claimed that, since I want to air out Lautenberg. What a jewel. Silently, it slam-dunked the un-researched problem of the intimidation of US women with guns. It flew silently under NRA radar at great speed.  It had unilateral precision. Amazing stuff.

Quote

NRA Fights For Convicted Stalkers' Gun Rights

Aides from two different senators' offices confirm that the NRA sent a letter to lawmakers describing Klobuchar's legislation as "a bill to turn disputes between family members and social acquaintances into lifetime firearm prohibitions." The nation's largest gun lobby wrote that it "strongly opposes" the bill because the measure "manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as 'domestic violence' and 'stalking' simply to cast as wide a net as possible for federal firearm prohibitions."

(...)  One study of female murder victims in 10 cities found that three-quarters of the women killed, and 85 percent of women who survived a murder attempt by a current or former intimate partner, had been stalked in the previous year. And almost half of all intimate-partner homicides are committed by a non-married, non-cohabitating dating partner who was not covered by federal gun restrictions.

 

Share this post


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

Joe, you probably are going to want to continue your tradition of not actually reading court opinions.

Otherwise People v Chairez might make your head explode.

Sure thing, I'll just read the thing, because Pooplius wants me to. Where have you been hiding?

Outdoors.

Which is ironically relevant, though I haven't had any guns with me.

Share this post


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

Outdoors.

Which is ironically relevant, though I haven't had any guns with me.

Attah boy. My guess was fishing.

Outdoors is fightin' words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought yet another boat.

My old pontoon boat has become such a POS that it has a future as a floating dock. So I bought a different old 'toon boat and am going to transplant all the nice, new stuff off my old boat onto it.

Hey Dylan, if I have two boats but only one motor, do I have to count both in my PN score?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites