• 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 hours 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?

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.

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

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!

6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

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
24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

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.

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.

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

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.

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
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this