Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Oh look, they guy who needs the word "vacated" explained to him is now going back a month to do gotchas.

You go, Joe. Don't forget the masturbatory fantasy you wrote about "not going to the gutter"

Look, you spent the month demonstrating that you haven't read to page 10 of the case you were mouthing off about. 

It turns out I had felt like reading it, read much of it, and forgot where  the term Peruta I sprang up.

Share this post


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

To re-conclude this, we find that, in colonial times, 97% of the uses of "bear arms" held a military reference.

Feel free to ask somebody familiar with math if 97% = all, Joe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2018 at 2:22 PM, bpm57 said:

Feel free to ask somebody familiar with math if 97% = all, Joe.

What is your problem? You want "bear arms" to apply to everyday guys, but the term was military. You are making shit up, standing on a foundation of nonsense.

Your butt hurts at the same time that most does not equal all. It seems like an holding pattern for you...while others read away about pertinent stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Why would a Supreme Court judge interpret things that way? I don't see any military language at all.

Just language saying that if blacks were considered The People, they could keep and carry arms wherever they went.

This was considered a huge problem at the time because some people thought that blacks are too immature and volatile to be considered people with gun rights.

That kind of thinking has mostly gone away.

On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Why would a Supreme Court judge interpret things that way? I don't see any military language at all.

Just language saying that if blacks were considered The People, they could keep and carry arms wherever they went.

This was considered a huge problem at the time because some people thought that blacks are too immature and volatile to be considered people with gun rights.

That kind of thinking has mostly gone away.

 

Speaking of holding patterns, this is your second rickroll to ahem Judge Taney. For sport.

 

Thank you for another opportunity to expose a special human on Political Anarchy. His name was MLK, and he grasped that violence itself is a dead end. He came to understand, and was able to articulate, the nature of violence. His death was my high school graduation present, it left me feeling empty inside.

I can't get enough of the race-baiting you redneck fool. 

Share this post


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

What is your problem? You want "bear arms" to apply to everyday guys, but the term was military.

Joe, we know that the english language seems to confuse you, but clearly what you claim wasn't the case. If it was, then it would be 100%.

Not to mention that it is cute that you believe that any review done over 200 years later is going to cover every colonial broadsheet printed.

 

Share this post


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

1) Romaine lettuce, last time I checked, still is not a constitutionally enumerated right and

Here's the actual status of this right: basically, you need to stay in your lodging, while not shooting out of it at bad guys. Peruta II is my case law.


1. I didn't say that. Joe screwed up the quotes again.

2. Joe can't get current case law right either, not being a reader of cases.

On 7/24/2018 at 10:36 PM, dogballs Tom said:

9th Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Applies In Public

It may take a few more years or decades, but the nonsense that we had indoor militias is just that: nonsense. It won't prevail in the end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 2:34 PM, bpm57 said:

Not to mention that it is cute that you believe that any review done over 200 years later is going to cover every colonial broadsheet printed.

Present the nifty and vaporous "broadsheets."

Patrick J Charles has demonstrated that he read every written law. He said the military emphasis of bear arms, and of arms rights, was consistent and thorough. He definitely followed the pamphleteers, and wants to know why they didn't squawk about the colonists' guns being beaten upon, and broken up, while their powder was being confiscated, circa 1774.

 

 

On 10/21/2018 at 2:34 PM, bpm57 said:

Joe, we know that the english language seems to confuse you, but clearly what you claim wasn't the case. If it was, then it would be 100%.

Your reference to the 3% civilian usage kinda sinks your craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:


1. I didn't say that. Joe screwed up the quotes again. 

2. Joe can't get current case law right either, not being a reader of cases.

You must need a refresher, on the gems now in play. May I present Peruta II.

Quote

The Peruta court addressed the issue of "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has 2 a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1147.

 

As a preliminary matter, the court noted that "California generally prohibits the open or concealed carriage of a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public locations." Id.(citations and footnote omitted). However, an individual could apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the city or county in which he worked or resided. See id. at 1148 (citations  omitted).

To obtain such a license, however, an applicant had to meet several requirements,including a demonstration of good moral character, completion of a specified training course, and establishing good cause. See id. (citations omitted). The plaintiff challenged San Diego County's procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license, in particular its definition of the term "good cause." See id.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your side in the aftermath, here it is. The writer could wind up on the SC.

Quote

The Paul Clement Footnotes, after Peruta II

1 The State tries to escape that conclusion by claiming that any “open carry” right may still be accommodated by concealed carry. It is far from clear that the Ninth Circuit shares that view, but even if it does, the court’s decision still needlessly forces broadside facial challenges to open-carry restrictions.

 

2 The State suggests that the Ninth Circuit is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the State’s open-carry laws in Nichols v. Brown, No. 14-55873. StateBIO15 n.10. Notably, the State has never until now suggested that this pro se case, which is littered with procedural irregularities and other deficiencies, is an appropriate vehicle for resolution of such a weighty constitutional issue.

At the time of the complaint the good cause requirement was set out in California Penal Code section 12050. That provision has since been renumbered as section 26150. See generally Cal. Penal Code §§ 16000-16025 (explaining recodification).

 3 The district court reasoned in part that, as “a practical matter, should the need for self-defense arise,” state law did not “restrict[] the open carry of unloaded firearms and ammunition ready for instant loading.” Pet. App. 216. While this case was on appeal, state law was amended to further restrict unloaded open carry. See Cal. Penal Code § 26350(a); see also Pet. App. 63-64, 66-67 (Callahan, J., dissenting); id. at 84-86 (N.R. Smith, J., dissenting).

6 The Seventh Circuit struck down an Illinois public carry statute in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Noting that Illinois was “the only state” with “a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home,” id. at 940, it distinguished laws that require “a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public” and that “place[] the burden on the applicant to show that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons,” id. at 941—that is, laws like those in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California.

 7 See Drake, No. 13-827 (cert. denied May 5, 2014); Woollard, No. 13-42 (cert. denied Oct. 15,

8 Some of the counsel for petitioners in this case have also filed a new case in which they argue that California’s “regulatory scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it prevents [the plaintiffs] from carrying either openly or concealed.” Flanagan v. Harris, C.D. Cal. No. 16-cv-6164, Dkt. No. 31 at 1 (emphasis in original). The plaintiffs in that case acknowledge that “the en banc decision in Peruta expressly reserved that question[.]” Ibid.

9 The State made clear in its briefing below that the remedy petitioners sought—forced issuance of concealed-carry permits—would have been inappropriate even if the court had construed petitioners’ claims broadly and concluded that California’s overall regulation of public carry was unduly restrictive. See CA9 Dkt. No. 261-1 at 9 n.2. The proper remedy would instead have been to clarify the law and then remand to allow the state legislature to decide how to comply with the constitutional limitations identified by the court. Ibid. (citing Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d at 942.) 10 A case making this precise claim—that the Second Amendment requires the State to allow an individual to carry openly, whether or not it would allow concealed-carry—is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Nichols v. Harris, CA9 No. 14-55873 (currently being briefed on the merits).

 

 

Share this post


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

Patrick J Charles has demonstrated that he read every written law.

We all know you love the guy, Joe. But we were not talking about him.

 

" 97% of the actual uses of the words "bear arms" were military during Colonial times. "

If your math is still failing, Joe, 97% still isn't all - no matter what kind of temper tantrum you throw.

But since you have convinced yourself of the existence of an indoor militia that is only allowed 1 firearm, I can't wait to read about your lawsuit that will upend 2A jurisprudence in the US.

Share this post


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

If your math is still failing, Joe, 97% still isn't all - no matter what kind of temper tantrum you throw.

What is with your obsession that "most does not equal all." Where did I say it did? Why is this important to you?

 

Your broad position is that the term "bear arms" assumes, and okays, civilians carrying guns. In the days of the FF, that term was overwhelmingly (97%) military. Period.

You need to accept that because the courts will, at some future point, since the scholarship rests here.

Quote

Saul Cornell (on Kozuskanich's computerized documentation of "Bear Arms")

8 Compare the impressionistic use of sources in Clayton E. Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson,66 GEO. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 511 cited by Scalia, with the systematic investigation of all of the uses of this term in published sources presented in Nathan Kozuskanich, Originalism, History, and the Second Amendment: What Did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders? 10 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 413.

 A careful scan of the former reveals that much of its evidence is not drawn from the Founding Era, but from later periods and English sources. Interestingly, the Kozuskanich article was cited by the District of Columbia in its reply brief, but Scalia ignored its clear evidence of the dominant usage of the term "bear arms" in the Founding era. Reply Brief for Petitioners at *7, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) (No. 07-290).

 9 Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2807.

"Broadsheets," you poser? That is the area where all means all. Below we find is the scholar who used a computer to determine the 97% military use of this term.

Quote

Kozuskanich,  PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: A LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume10/issue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(2008).pdf

Given the daunting military task facing the American patriots in the wake of the Declaration of Independence, it is no surprise that every mention of bearing arms in the newspapers from 1777 to 1784 was made in that context. As states mustered militias and the Continental Army managed to survive year after year, "bearing arms" was certainly understood as being exclusively military in nature.

Does every mean every? 

Share this post


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

Your broad position is that the term "bear arms" assumes, and okays, civilians carrying guns.

In the words of a Supreme Court Justice, the rights of citizens include:

Quote

the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Inexplicable, huh, Joe? Time to attack me for bringing it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

In the words of a Supreme Court Justice, the rights of citizens include:

Inexplicable, huh, Joe? Time to attack me for bringing it up.

You are baiting an attack, stuck in yesteryear.

Sorry Tom. You and Judge Taney have little to offer me. I can't afford to dwell at your level too much.

DRED, MLK'S PERMIT.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You've chosen to ignore content by jocal505. Options 

OK he keeps posting his shitty pics with unreadable(probably lies) words that can't be read. He has not won an argument and continues on this stupid idea that guns are only for at home when that has been proven wrong by the LAWS in America. Enough is enough POOF gone. Let me know if he finally finds a winning argument guys.

Share this post


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

But the 2nd is special in this regard. The NRA has it on the wall of their HQ, with the first part.mysteriously missing.  It always is when someone is touting it.  Always. 


Not always. I reference it frequently when I want to make fun of the TeamD/gungrabby idea that we had indoor militias.

We did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:


Not always. I reference it frequently when I want to make fun of the TeamD/gungrabby idea that we had indoor militias.

We did not.

Not so fast, propaganda boi. The Peruta result allows you to march up and down the hallway, while armed. Don't try it in the driveway.

Here are four recent cases which refused to allow outdoor gunz.

Quote

--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),

And consider this breakdown of the above, from Wrenn.

Quote

Judge Henderson (item: p32 of Wrenn Decision, the opening of the dissent)

My colleagues attempt to minimize the Supreme Court’s declarations by insisting that the relevant history speaks with “one voice on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.” Maj. Op. 12-13 p32. But their view of history is with blinders on as it is contradicted by our sister circuits’ extensive review of the same historical  record.

 

 Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91

(“History and tradition do not speak with one voice here. What history demonstrates is that states often disagreed as to the scope of the right to bear arms, whether the right was embodied in a state constitution or the Second Amendment.”);

Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 96 (alteration in original)

(“The historical prevalence of the regulation of firearms in public demonstrates that while the Second Amendment’s core concerns are strongest inside hearth and home, states have long recognized a countervailing and competing set of concerns with regard to handgun ownership and use in public.”).

 

Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (same);

Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 470-71

 (“[A]s we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”);

cf. Peruta, 824 F.3d at 939

(in U.S. history, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public”).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 9:52 AM, dogballs Tom said:

2. Joe can't get current case law right either, not being a reader of cases.

On 7/24/2018 at 10:36 PM, dogballs Tom said:

9th Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Applies In Public

It may take a few more years or decades, but the nonsense that we had indoor militias is just that: nonsense. It won't prevail in the end.

 

This situation is unlikely to end as Joe is unlikely to begin reading cases and the propaganda sources he consults don't wish to talk about the ones they lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

This situation is unlikely to end as Joe is unlikely to begin reading cases and the propaganda sources he consults don't wish to talk about the ones they lose.

HAIL MARY TIME The Marianas angle is your most wonderful crusher, the best ever, since Big Temporary.

Don't be a wanker. Debate the legal baseline some day.

 

Yes, this topic of indoor militias is nonsense, and this nonsense was created and introduced by Tom Ray,

Not an impressive showing, mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 10:38 AM, benwynn said:
On 12/10/2018 at 6:01 AM, dogballs Tom said:

An excuse for what?

Our shared opposition to TeamD gun bans, perhaps?

Yes. Exactly.

^^^ Feel free to copy this response into whatever thread you feel appropriate.


Roger that. I don't think this one is really appropriate but it is funny to me. Indoor militias are a riot, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2013 at 6:43 PM, benwynn said:

 

May I suggest an ammendment that has the word "Regulated" in it?

 

Shit. I'm too late again.

Sounds like something that would only apply indoors, doesn't it? Especially when you get to the next word!

Share this post


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

Sounds like something that would only apply indoors, doesn't it? Especially when you get to the next word!

The word "regulated" APPLY?  Now that IS funny.  Who would think that a word in an amendment would apply. HA! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The word "regulated" APPLY?  Now that IS funny.  Who would think that a word in an amendment would apply. HA! 

If that's funny, you must be doubled up laughing at the indoor militias that grabbers think we had.

After all, words in lots of amendments apply in ways that make sense. Indoor militias just don't and that's funny.

It won't stop people who want to restrict our rights from pursuing that lie in courts where it might not be so funny, but at least we can laugh at their ridiculous lies as they pursue the gun bans you and I oppose.

Share this post


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

at least we can laugh at their ridiculous lies as they pursue the gun bans you and I oppose.

Quote

 you must be doubled up laughing at the indoor militias that grabbers think we had.

Indoor militias is the hot topic, eh?

I find no worthy content under your name these days.  We'll see if silliness and nonsense, as approaches to gun violence, work. 

BTW, Butina's NRA involvement gets disclosed today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gun deaths in US reach highest level in nearly 40 years, CDC data reveal

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/

Excerpt -

Nearly 40,000 people in the United States died by guns last year, marking the highest number of gun deaths in decades, according to a new analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WONDER database.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 10:23 AM, Sean said:

 

Gun deaths in US reach highest level in nearly 40 years, CDC data reveal

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/

Excerpt -

Nearly 40,000 people in the United States died by guns last year, marking the highest number of gun deaths in decades, according to a new analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WONDER database.

How many of those were Self-Murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 11:14 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

How many of those were Self-Murder?

2017

Total gun deaths 39,773

 Suicides                23,854

 Homicides           15,919

 

Again, the stable homicide figure for about eight years was 11,500. (For the suicide figure, see the fine suicide cheerleaders.)

Quote

As with gun homicides, the CDC recorded drastically different gun-related suicide rates in various areas of the country, ranging from 1.6 to 13.5 for every 100,000 people. The New York metropolitan area had the lowest gun suicide rate, while the Oklahoma City area had the highest.

 

 

Badgeless Boy, Suicide Cheerleader.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one gun is allowed into a home and it only is capable of firing one round, that's a suicide risk.

The only SOLution: no guns in any homes capable of even one round.

This is what people who use suicide stats to call for gun control must want, if they want it to be effective instead of just to punish people for owning evil guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 3:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:

If one gun is allowed into a home and it only is capable of firing one round, that's a suicide risk.

The only SOLution: no guns in any homes capable of even one round.

This is what people who use suicide stats to call for gun control must want, if they want it to be effective instead of just to punish people for owning evil guns.

seems like imagining, Tom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 3:47 PM, dogballs Tom said:

If one gun is allowed into a home and it only is capable of firing one round, that's a suicide risk.

The only SOLution: no guns in any homes capable of even one round.

This is what people who use suicide stats to call for gun control must want, if they want it to be effective instead of just to punish people for owning evil guns.

That's just wrong Tom, we need to limit hi cap mags and autoloading battlefield rifles to prevent suicide.  You just never know how many times they might pull the trigger before they successfully self-murder.  

Share this post


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

That's just wrong Tom, we need to limit hi cap mags and autoloading battlefield rifles to prevent suicide.  You just never know how many times they might pull the trigger before they successfully self-murder.  

Wanker content.^^^. But welcome back.

 

The overall suicide rate increased after the 2008 financial collapse. But the CDC comments that the rate never decreased with the recovery, as one might expect.

Have intelligent comment? 

Share this post


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

Wanker content.^^^. But welcome back.

 

The overall suicide rate increased after the 2008 financial collapse. But the CDC comments that the rate never decreased with the recovery, as one might expect.

Have intelligent comment? 

Here’s an intelligent comment.  What’s your major malfunction numbnuts? Dredging up 3 grunthreads that if no one responded to nutters like dog balls and Short Jeff would die on the vine.  You consistently act as an immature troll and other than stalking those two contribute nothing to the conversation.

SAD!

Share this post


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

Here’s an intelligent comment.  What’s your major malfunction numbnuts? Dredging up 3 grunthreads that if no one responded to nutters like dog balls and Short Jeff would die on the vine.  You consistently act as an immature troll and other than stalking those two contribute nothing to the conversation.

SAD!

This is a current, hot topic. The daily mass shootings are number two citizen concern, according to the NBC/WSJ poll from two days ago.

I troll for intelligent information or insight, using current and pertinent content. I encounter all the wisdom of Judge Taney.

 

And you don't have the thunder or cachet of bull gaytor.

 

Share this post


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

The overall suicide rate increased after the 2008 financial collapse. But the CDC comments that the rate never decreased with the recovery, as one might expect.

Have intelligent comment? 

In your own words (no cutnpaste please), Why do you think the suicide rate didn't decrease after the 2008 crisis??

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