• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncooperative Tom

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

660 posts in this topic

21 hours ago, Sportboat Jeff said:

Joke-al, seriously dude. Step away from the keyboard. You are becoming unhinged. Your head is on the verge of exploding. 

Furthermore, it has been obvious to me, mate, that you aren't a native to the US and likely from one of the commonwealth of the Queen cuntries somewhere. Hate to break it to you, but you're in 'Murica now, boy. All this English law and parliament shit won't hunt. As UT said, we've made more than a few "deviations" from mother England's law and customs. Get over it. 

The connection between Northampton in 1328  and our Bill of Rights in 1791 was the FF's consideration of Article VII, from England's 1689 Declaration of Rights. YOUR SCHOLARS say so (in a Heller brief labelled CATO over Joyce Lee Malcolm's name). Here is the shit Tom's Libertarians made up for the Supreme Court.

Quote

(2008. Heller) BRIEF OF THE CATO INSTITUTE AND HISTORY PROFESSOR JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/dc_v_heller.pdf

The claim: that Article VII had suddenly proposed and approved armed violence as the new English normal. They are full of shit, just making stuff up. More inclusive scholars have demonstrated that provisions against carrying weapons had continuity into the 1800's.

The massive historical basis to oppose  the SAF's "self defense" platform flattens CC rights (as the Peruta en banc study revealed after absorbing the exceptional study of Patrick Charles and Lois Schwoerer). In the USA of the FF, their inclusive documentation also decimates OC rights, aka riding armed in public, in at least three of our thirteen colonies. In the ten other colonies, Judge Blackstone calmly guided judicial decisions to discourage even carrying arms.in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time a Catholic King (James II) began appointing Catholic militia lieutenants, and each controlled militia armories. Several Protestants were disarmed by them. The Parliament was asked for individual gun rights for Protestants to quash the Catholics one incident at a time. It was discussed and voted upon. Joyce Lee Malcolm, paid by and speaking for CATO mind you, reports a victory for gun rights which never happened. 

The Parliament did not pass an okay to violent, armed confrontation. They formed vague language giving themselves control of militia officer assignments. Then they attached a loyalty oath to any lieutenant's swearing in. (The USA would copy both solutions one century later.) The Convention Parliament did not okay armed self defense behavior, using Article VII or any other mechanism. Riding around armed was forbidden by law for 500 years or more.

The problem here is the boogered history presented to Scalia. He bought it, praising Joyce Malcolm as a British Oxford historian. (Scalia was foolish:and under-informed: Malcolm is a Texan, teaching for the Libertarian George Mason U; she had worked at Oxford long ago in an unspecified job, but did not study there.)

 

The militia acts of 1661 and 1662 lay out the British reasoning about militia rights, rights to weapons in the marketplaces and courts, and control over the  militia.

  • Parliamentary authority was imposed.
  • Search and seizure of arms was continued, depending.
  • Individuals could not confront one another with weapons (except in someone's living room)
  • individual confrontations against Catholic lieutenants was not sanctioned.

The King's Catholics were controlled non-violently, and cleverly. Where lawful resistance and "self-protection" from James and Catholics were re-introduced, it was controlled by duly appointed officers, not individuals. The officers responded to the Parliament, AFTER A LOYALTY OATH TO THE PARLIAMENT. Overall, this would offset the expenses of any standing army, an army the Parliament had denied to the king.

 

Look familiar? This ^^^ is the system the Bill of Rights keyed off of. Where is the approval for armed self-defense? Produce it, gentlemen, if you can document it.

Share this post


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

What does that have to do with whether or not Chicago residents can carry their guns into public spaces that have nothing whatsoever to do with their homes, such as front porches and attached garages?

Everything.  Nice try.

Share this post


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

Everything.  Nice try.

Vapor he gots. 


Here in the archives, Tom can't name Scalia's historians... and dodged by claiming the colonies confiscated no guns.  

FACTCHECKING AFTER POOPLIUS  The colonies responded to Washington's request, and confiscated Tory guns for him. Pennsylvania took non-oathakers guns. And Massachussetts took Shay's follower's guns. 

Quote

THE TOM RAY HISTORIOGRPHY Chasing Tom for Authentic History Feb. 2015

Post 30. Joe 2-13 Poster Art (specifying minor gun control in 1781)

Post 34 Tom 2-16 Tom claims fire measures were the sole consideration, points out the absence of "confiscation" in that period.

Tom tries to dismiss all claims  on the poster.

http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163762>

Post44? Feb. 17 2015 Joe replies for editorial objections #1.

Post 43 2-17 Tom declares no reason or other sources. Joe asks again about home defense weapons being incapacitated by law.

Post 69 Feb. 18 Joe reminds Tom of the topic, refers to post 44, asks fire source #2, points out that the FF had three minor gun control items on the poster art which are unachievable today. Quotes Breyer doubting that loaded guns in homes were considered central.

Post 76 Feb. 18 Tom replies that British confiscated guns.  (This fact  would only make any suggestion to incapacitate firearms more touchy: yet all three cities had guns.) Tom suggests that Joe's "well regulated" meant government disarmament.

Tom adds an un-sourced history piece(edit: Cramer) which coaches bringing confiscation into the FF-era gun control discussion.

Post 77  Joe deflects the confiscation straw man, and asks (the third time) about incapacitation of home defense weapons, per laws listed on the poster art.

Joe asks for a source for Tom's fourth historical documentation. (One covered race, so was off-topic, one timeframe was the French and Indian War; one was Hardy, a paid NRA researcher in an NRA think tank.

Post 78 Feb. 21  Tom grinds the confiscation axe.

Post 80. Feb. 21 Joe laments dancing with "a third-grade female." Tom never produced Scalia's scholars.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...c=163762&page=2

 

Share this post


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

OK, please elaborate.

How does this story relate to whether or not an attached garage or front porch is part of a home?

Do you agree with the NRA that an attached garage is part of the building to which it is attached, or are you a Brady Bunch guy who thinks it more like a "distant barn" or something? I mean for second amendment purposes, of course. I have no doubt you'd figure out it's part of the home if this were a fourth amendment discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to your tightly bound question is the latter, but only in the framework of to whom I give my vote.

In a larger context, I think it can be argued that if you want to run an experiment in disrupting a major city, the NRA approach is a reasonable hypothesis as one of the pressure points inviting a multifaceted and fairly clear reaction from many other factions in the city.  Given the Russian proclivity to stir the pot in that direction, and the complete lack of  2nd amendment rights in Russia, what are you going to do as far as getting Russian meddling out of the NRA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is that Tom is the type of patriot will do zip about Russians meddling with US gun policy. Because Pooplius shares the "Russian proclivity to stir the pot in the direction of" underwear shots from the porch. Tom's indoor militia wore out the carpet in the hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 4:15 PM, Amati said:

The answer to your tightly bound question is the latter, but only in the framework of to whom I give my vote.

In a larger context, I think it can be argued that if you want to run an experiment in disrupting a major city, the NRA approach is a reasonable hypothesis as one of the pressure points inviting a multifaceted and fairly clear reaction from many other factions in the city.  Given the Russian proclivity to stir the pot in that direction, and the complete lack of  2nd amendment rights in Russia, what are you going to do as far as getting Russian meddling out of the NRA?

So you'll vote for the idea that an attached garage is like a distant barn but you don't actually believe in it?

That at least explains why no one but jocal wants to defend this idea that the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. You'd rather not defend something you know is ridiculous. I can't blame you.

Just to make sure: if a warrant authorizes the search of a home, would that include the attached garage in your world? I mean, you don't think it's part of the home, or at least don't vote that way, so...

I'm not an NRA member and don't share your concern about Russian "meddling" in the NRA. If you're concerned, by all means join up and try to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old English Law firmly discouraged armed,violent self-defense, except in the living room or thereabouts. Did the FF change this? Where is any source for that claim?

 

Tom, where is your legal justification for armed "self defense" itself? Are you an expert? A forum search shows nine pages of self defense claims from yourself.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=self defense&author=Uncooperative Tom

I think you'll find any legal justification scanty, outside the concept of confrontation and other terminology...all  found in Heller.

 

Joyce in her prime.JPG

Share this post


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

So you'll vote for the idea that an attached garage is like a distant barn but you don't actually believe in it?

That at least explains why no one but jocal wants to defend this idea that the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. You'd rather not defend something you know is ridiculous. I can't blame you.

Just to make sure: if a warrant authorizes the search of a home, would that include the attached garage in your world? I mean, you don't think it's part of the home, or at least don't vote that way, so...

I'm not an NRA member and don't share your concern about Russian "meddling" in the NRA. If you're concerned, by all means join up and try to change it.

Dude, I'm not a lawyer.  The law regularly goes through what look like pointless semantic backflips to do it's thing.  I know there are good reasons for that, but that said it's a good example of why I didn't inflict on myself the tedious boredom of law school.  So, if I'm not going to conclude that only lawyers should be allowed to vote, I try to find organizations and sides  (for want of a better word) that have enough clout to make something I'd like to see happen.  It's not perfect, but having lived in our state capitol long enough, and spent many hours observing,from the gallery, both state houses, I have an idea of how it works.  

I think that answers your question.  Unless it was just an accusation?  Unfortunately for everyone involved, the 2nd amendment is written enough like poetry that the meaning is only self evident when filtered by the passions of the observer.  I think I understand you don't want regulations on your gun ownership because you are a reasonable, intelligent individual.  Unfortunately you are as bedeviled by the second amendment as the rest of us.  Better I think to relegate it to the dustbin of militia types, and attack gun ownership directly.  Because if you want to avoid legal backflips (which it looks like you've been doing) that's the only way to do it.

And frankly, the NRA is purporting to represent you whether you like it or not, unless you take the time to get involved, and maybe testify in front of some legislators, so they know you (and with any luck others) are not an NRA stooge, and maybe that insanity might be taken out of this awful situation.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Dude, I'm not a lawyer.  The law regularly goes through what seem like semantic backflips to do it's thing.  I know there are reasons for that, and there's a good example of why I didn't inflict on  myself the tedious boredom of law school.  So, if I'm not going to conclude that only lawyers should be allowed to vote, I try to find organizations and sides  (for wont of a better word) that have enough clout to make something I'd like to see happen.  It's not perfect, but having lived in our state capitol long enough, and spent many hours observing,from the gallery, both state houses, I have an idea of how it works.  

I think that answers your question.  Unless it was just an accusation.  Unfortunately for everyone involved, the 2nd amendment is written enough like poetry that the meaning is self evident,  filtered the passions of the observer.  I think I understand you don't want regulations on your gun ownership because you are a reasonable, intelligent individual.  Unfortunately you are as bedeviled by the second amendment as the rest of us.  Better I think to relegate it to the dustbin of militia types, and attack gun ownership directly.  Because if you want to avoid legal backflips, that's the only way to do it.

And frankly, the NRA is purporting to represent you whether you like it or not, unless you take the time to get involved, and maybe testify in front of some legislators, so they know you (and with any luck others) are not an NRA stooge, and maybe that insanity might be taken out of this awful situation.

 

 

 

Care to differentiate between an NRA stooge and a CATO stooge? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Amati said:

Dude, I'm not a lawyer.  The law regularly goes through what look like pointless semantic backflips to do it's thing.  I know there are good reasons for that, but that said it's a good example of why I didn't inflict on myself the tedious boredom of law school.  So, if I'm not going to conclude that only lawyers should be allowed to vote, I try to find organizations and sides  (for want of a better word) that have enough clout to make something I'd like to see happen.  It's not perfect, but having lived in our state capitol long enough, and spent many hours observing,from the gallery, both state houses, I have an idea of how it works.  

I think that answers your question.  Unless it was just an accusation?  Unfortunately for everyone involved, the 2nd amendment is written enough like poetry that the meaning is only self evident when filtered by the passions of the observer.  I think I understand you don't want regulations on your gun ownership because you are a reasonable, intelligent individual.  Unfortunately you are as bedeviled by the second amendment as the rest of us.  Better I think to relegate it to the dustbin of militia types, and attack gun ownership directly.  Because if you want to avoid legal backflips (which it looks like you've been doing) that's the only way to do it.

And frankly, the NRA is purporting to represent you whether you like it or not, unless you take the time to get involved, and maybe testify in front of some legislators, so they know you (and with any luck others) are not an NRA stooge, and maybe that insanity might be taken out of this awful situation.

 

 

 

There are no good reasons to think the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. It's something grabbers invented because the Heller decision covered one gun in a home but concluding from that case that nothing else can ever be covered is ridiculous.

No, that doesn't answer my question. It's a pretty simple one: if a warrant authorizes the search of a home, would that include the attached garage in your world?

The point of the semantic game by which grabbers concluded that guns are allowed in the home, but not in public spaces like attached garages or front porches, was to attack gun ownership directly. What other point could there possibly be for such a ridiculous requirement? "Public safety" demands that people not wander out into the garage with a gun?

The NRA represents you as much as me by your standards. I haven't bothered to testify to legislators that I'm not an NRA stooge. Why waste their time? Have you done it?

Share this post


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

There are no good reasons to think the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. It's something grabbers invented because the Heller decision covered one gun in a home but concluding from that case that nothing else can ever be covered is ridiculous.

No, that doesn't answer my question. It's a pretty simple one: if a warrant authorizes the search of a home, would that include the attached garage in your world?

The point of the semantic game by which grabbers concluded that guns are allowed in the home, but not in public spaces like attached garages or front porches, was to attack gun ownership directly. What other point could there possibly be for such a ridiculous requirement? "Public safety" demands that people not wander out into the garage with a gun?

The NRA represents you as much as me by your standards. I haven't bothered to testify to legislators that I'm not an NRA stooge. Why waste their time? Have you done it?

We discus the bloody streets of documented history here, not semantics. The semantics and thought experiments are your own.

JFC Tom. You need to examine the reason that WEAPONS BEHAVIOR WAS NOT PROTECTED OUTDOORS IN ENGLAND FOR 500 YEARS.  Flaunting arms or hiding arms created problems based on human behavior (possilby based on five centuries of human nature). The courts on the European continent appealed to the higher road. So did Blackstone.

 

You are making shit up, Tom. Joyce quotes Blackstone eighteen times on the first pages of her brief. Blackstone's summaries of law, when not cherry-picked by Malcolm, calmly judged misdemeanor violations against those who rode about armed. If Englishmen concealed the weapon, or emoted terror with it, they were felons. If they defended themselves honorably in self-defense, their weapons were confiscated, and they were goaled, until an explanation was given the courts and community. They didn't fool around with your elk.

Assuming you can debate those English decisions, then armed self defense in public was still against the law in three of thirteen colonies, based on  the adoption of the established precepts of Northampton. Produce any debate changing this in the constitutional convention. Malcolm tried that, and was answered by historians as early as 1983. She never corrected her cherry-picked, shabby, and incomplete account, and Scalia used it without suitable scrutiny.

You can hide behind Amati with your rehearsed bits, but you can't defend Scalia's historians.

 

Share this post


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

There are no good reasons to think the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. It's something grabbers invented because the Heller decision covered one gun in a home but concluding from that case that nothing else can ever be covered is ridiculous.

I'm gonna quote Tom Ray. Baby steps, One thing at a time. Indoor guns first, then outdoor guns may be determined, or not. Months ago the Ninth Circuit, after absorbing non-cherrypicked history, used  an interesting term repeatedly, "outdoor gun rights, if any."  They cautioned that the discussion will begin, not end, if the SC agrees to hear this. (Try to keep up, the SC declined to cert the discussion as of last month.)

Quote

The point of the semantic game by which grabbers concluded that guns are allowed in the home, but not in public spaces like attached garages or front porches, was to attack gun ownership directly. What other point could there possibly be for such a ridiculous requirement? "Public safety" demands that people not wander out into the garage with a gun?

No semantics are in play. The "ridiculous requirement" to not go armed in public has a rich and consistent legal history, which you haven't recognized in good faith discussion.

Share this post


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

There are no good reasons to think the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. It's something grabbers invented because the Heller decision covered one gun in a home but concluding from that case that nothing else can ever be covered is ridiculous.

No, that doesn't answer my question. It's a pretty simple one: if a warrant authorizes the search of a home, would that include the attached garage in your world?

The point of the semantic game by which grabbers concluded that guns are allowed in the home, but not in public spaces like attached garages or front porches, was to attack gun ownership directly. What other point could there possibly be for such a ridiculous requirement? "Public safety" demands that people not wander out into the garage with a gun?

The NRA represents you as much as me by your standards. I haven't bothered to testify to legislators that I'm not an NRA stooge. Why waste their time? Have you done it?

You are trapped by the 2nd Amendment.  

A warrant can authorize the search of a garage or a house or a doghouse or a treehouse.  If the folks asking for a warrant don't know the in and outs of applicable law, the difference between a garage being attached or not attached doesn't amount to much.  Get a grip. 

And yup, my legislators know I'm not an NRA stooge.  And it's also considered traditional to actually read a post before you go off on it.  I said the NRA PURPORTS to represent you.  

Share this post


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

We discus the bloody streets of documented history here, not semantics. The semantics and thought experiments are your own.

JFC Tom. You need to examine the reason that WEAPONS BEHAVIOR WAS NOT PROTECTED OUTDOORS IN ENGLAND FOR 500 YEARS.  Flaunting arms or hiding arms created problems based on human behavior (possilby based on five centuries of human nature). The courts on the European continent appealed to the higher road. So did Blackstone.

 

You are making shit up, Tom. Joyce quotes Blackstone eighteen times on the first pages of her brief. Blackstone's summaries of law, when not cherry-picked by Malcolm, calmly judged misdemeanor violations against those who rode about armed. If Englishmen concealed the weapon, or emoted terror with it, they were felons. If they defended themselves honorably in self-defense, their weapons were confiscated, and they were goaled, until an explanation was given the courts and community. They didn't fool around with your elk.

Assuming you can debate those English decisions, then armed self defense in public was still against the law in three of thirteen colonies, based on  the adoption of the established precepts of Northampton. Produce any debate changing this in the constitutional convention. Malcolm tried that, and was answered by historians as early as 1983. She never corrected her cherry-picked, shabby, and incomplete account, and Scalia used it without suitable scrutiny.

You can hide behind Amati with your rehearsed bits, but you can't defend Scalia's historians.

 

I hope Tom is not hiding behind me.  Shit, there are guns involved here!!!!!!!

Share this post


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

Care to differentiate between an NRA stooge and a CATO stooge? 

Well, when you put it that way....B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are differences, of course. Here's the figure behind Levy. They both sat at the lead counsel table on Heller. This character has Tom's cutesy way of writing, times ten. Scalia was cutesy in a similar way.

I have tried to understand my adversaries by reading them. I can't absorb this guy. He writes like Lawrence of Arabia or Shakespeare, but with thought experiments in each paragraph, with hubris shining from his mirror.  T.E Lawrence on libertarian steroids?

Enjoy, and translate for me if you can. May I present Clark Neily...

Quote

 

The Second Amendment is Back, Baby, 34 pgs

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2008/9/hellerneily_0.pdf

 Many people contributed to the resurgence of the individual rights interpretation (Edit: "The Standard Model"), including Stephen Halbrook, Dave Kopel, Joyce Lee Malcom, and Randy Barnett, edit: FOUR OUT OF FOUR ARE LIBERTARIANS to name just a few. But most agree that the seminal work was Don Kates’s ‘‘Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,’’ which appeared in the Michigan Law Review in 1983.14 Acknowledging that the individual rights model was then endorsed ‘‘by only a minority of legal scholars,’’  Kates provided a comprehensive and devastating critique of what he called the ‘‘exclusively state’s right’’ interpretation of the Second Amendment. There followed an outpouring of new scholarship supporting the individual rights model and thoroughly undermining the historical, linguistic, and structural premises of the various militia-centric interpretations that had gained largely uncritical acceptance since Miller was decided in 1939.edit: FALSE CLAIM ALERT; THIS WORK IS NOT PEER REVIEWED, BABY

Don Kates went DTS recently, last November. Fair winds to him. He was a sincere man who misdirected many, with selective info IMO.

Share this post


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

There are differences, of course. Here's the figure behind Levy. They both sat at the lead counsel table on Heller. This character has Tom's cutesy way of writing, times ten. Scalia was cutesy in a similar way.

I have tried to understand my adversaries by reading them. I can't absorb this guy. He writes like Lawrence of Arabia or Shakespeare, but with thought experiments in each paragraph, with hubris, T.E Lawrence on libertarian steroids. Enjoy, and translate for me if you can.

Don Kates went DTS recently, last November.

Sounds like a guy who enjoyed his work, and had reached an historical satori viz the madness of crowds rushing from place to place proclaiming the absolute majesty of every new legal truth with each manic stampede.

And it's useful to remember that Scalia advocated individual states establishing official religions.  

And so it goes....

 

Share this post


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

You are trapped by the 2nd Amendment.  

 

Please free me. Or at least explain.

I don't feel "trapped" just because I understand that there's no evidence that the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. The Miller decision talked about people who "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

They were not supposed to "appear" in their homes.

Compounding the ridiculousness is the idea that "the home" must be narrowly defined to exclude the garage and porch. But even if Chicago were to have "broadly" defined the home to include all parts of the building, they were not supposed to appear on the porch either.

 

 

Share this post


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

Please free me. Or at least explain.

I don't feel "trapped" just because I understand that there's no evidence that the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. The Miller decision talked about people who "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

They were not supposed to "appear" in their homes.

Compounding the ridiculousness is the idea that "the home" must be narrowly defined to exclude the garage and porch. But even if Chicago were to have "broadly" defined the home to include all parts of the building, they were not supposed to appear on the porch either.

 

 

Why do you need the 2nd amendment to own guns?  You've tied yourself into legal and semantic knots because of it, and it's ruined your tranquility: you're still convinced your guns will be confiscated at any moment.  

Share this post


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

Why do you need the 2nd amendment to own guns?  You've tied yourself into legal and semantic knots because of it, and it's ruined your tranquility: you're still convinced your guns will be confiscated at any moment.  

I don't need the second amendment to own guns. Why do you think I do?

I don't really see how saying that the second amendment was written to apply to the people, whether indoors or outdoors, is a "legal or semantic knot" of any kind. It's just common sense to me and a few posts above, you even seemed to agree, though not with your votes.

Opposing the ongoing confiscation programs in places like California and Connecticut doesn't mean I'm afraid mine will be confiscated. As I noted in the thread about banning ordinary .22's in Florida, that ban has no chance of passage here at this time, a fact for which I'm thankful.

Share this post


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

I don't need the second amendment to own guns. Why do you think I do?

I don't really see how saying that the second amendment was written to apply to the people, whether indoors or outdoors, is a "legal or semantic knot" of any kind. It's just common sense to me and a few posts above, you even seemed to agree, though not with your votes.

Opposing the ongoing confiscation programs in places like California and Connecticut doesn't mean I'm afraid mine will be confiscated. As I noted in the thread about banning ordinary .22's in Florida, that ban has no chance of passage here at this time, a fact for which I'm thankful.

Then what is this?  Manic speculation on your part to fend away boredom?  

Share this post


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

Then what is this?  Manic speculation on your part to fend away boredom?  

Tom needs attention.

Certain manic speculation, (that plinker long rifles will be banned hased on TR lawyering)  was extended from FL to WA. Since last December. The gun nuts here are unaware there's a problem, since such tube feeders are specifically exempted in the legislation.

 

Pooplius needs the Second Amendment hooey to try to set up gun rights in North America. Research, the social sciences, the legal profession, the medical profession, and the peer-reviewed historians have lined up against him.

Tom's defense is to wank in public, with his prepared mental gyrations.

 

 

Joyce in her prime.JPG

Share this post


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

Tom needs attention.

Certain manic speculation, (that plinker long rifles will be banned hased on TR lawyering)  was extended from FL to WA. Since last December. The gun nuts here are unaware there's a problem, since such tube feeders are specifically exempted in the legislation.

 

Pooplius needs the Second Amendment hooey to try to set up gun rights in North America. Research, the social sciences, the legal profession, the medical profession, and the peer-reviewed historians have lined up against him.

Tom's defense is to wank in public, with his prepared mental gyrations.

 

 

Joyce in her prime.JPG

He does like catboats.  That's in his favor, I think.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Amati said:

Then what is this?  Manic speculation on your part to fend away boredom?  

A discussion on whether or not the second amendment applies inside the home.

I'm not sure where I've engaged in "manic speculation" but yes, it is mostly just idle entertainment.

Share this post


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

Please free me. Or at least explain.

I don't feel "trapped" just because I understand that there's no evidence that the second amendment was written to apply only inside homes. The Miller decision talked about people who "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

They were not supposed to "appear" in their homes.

Compounding the ridiculousness is the idea that "the home" must be narrowly defined to exclude the garage and porch. But even if Chicago were to have "broadly" defined the home to include all parts of the building, they were not supposed to appear on the porch either.

 

 

"No evidence" you say? You have credibility issues, and specific issues with the Federal Appeals Courts now.  

From P 19 of the Peruta Reply brief  (The SC discussed outdoor gun rights from April to June of  2017, after the denial of Mr. Peruta's CCP permit. They allowed the joint denial of  both CC and OC to Mr. Peruta.)

Quote

 

Moreover, petitioners’ suggestion that the challenged legal regimes “cannot possibly withstand constitutional scrutiny” if the Second Amendment applies outside the home (Pet. 15) misunderstands this Court’s precedents. The Court has made clear that even where the Amendment applies, it does not confer a right to “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. 

A conclusion or assumption that the Second Amendment applies outside the home begins, rather than ends, the inquiry into the constitutionality of a particular regulatory framework.

Outdoor gun rights are to be determined, according to SC filings and responses.

Share this post


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

A discussion on whether or not the second amendment applies inside the home.

I'm not sure where I've engaged in "manic speculation" but yes, it is mostly just idle entertainment.

Grannis's AW was your only content on the gun threads from Dec. to May. It was pathetic, Tom. Embarrassing.

Share this post


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

I don't need the second amendment to own guns.

This  ^^^ is a monster lie. You are dead meat without distorting the Second Amendment, and you know it.

Quote

Why do you think I do?

Because of loud gun nut body language since the GCA  of '68.

Share this post


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

A discussion on whether or not the second amendment applies inside the home.

I'm not sure where I've engaged in "manic speculation" but yes, it is mostly just idle entertainment.

That's cool.

Share this post


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

A discussion on whether or not the second amendment applies inside the home.

I'm not sure where I've engaged in "manic speculation" but yes, it is mostly just idle entertainment.

Manic speculation about tube feedeer bans drove you make seven posts about elk antlers on AW's.

Quote

 

Share this post


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

Manic speculation about tube feedeer bans drove you make seven posts about elk antlers on AW's.

 

Well, there is that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 0:17 PM, Amati said:

And it's useful to remember that Scalia advocated individual states establishing official religions.  

He did???  Please cite and elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportbloat is back in town. Sportbloat has been keeping a low profile on the gun threads. Sportbloat may have been studying Heller.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportboat has been traveling and has had little time and even less interest in your usual drivel. 

If it seems like I've been ignoring you - it's because I am. 

Share this post


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

Sportboat has been traveling and has had little time and even less interest in your usual drivel. 

If it seems like I've been ignoring you - it's because I am. 

Seems like Gun Club Jeff avoids the gun threads.

Scalia discussed English History quite a bit in Heller's majority opinion. Have you read Heller, Jeffie?

Share this post


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

Sportboat has been traveling and has had little time and even less interest in your usual drivel. 

If it seems like I've been ignoring you - it's because I am. 

Oh oh- SB is referring to himself in the royal 'we'.

Be vewy careful....

Share this post


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

Sportboat has been traveling and has had little time and even less interest in your usual drivel. 

If it seems like I've been ignoring you - it's because I am. 

What is drivel to one person is 500 years of stunning, pertinent history to another.

You are a superior intellectual leader on Political Anarchy, Jeff. Care to comment on the pattern shown through history here? Scalia said, at length, that English history was pertinent..The American concept of armed self defense is quite at odds with English tradition.

Join a discussion which is now cutting edge, Jeff. This Northampton discussion was pivotal in the Wren Case, after Palmer vs D.C. briefly brought reciprocity to D.C. in 2014.

Scalia said that presumably, "long standing" gun regulations were valid for constitutionality. Getting this history right is yuge. This appears to be your SC problem, point blank:

Quote

 

The Unbroken Timeline of Gun Control: the Statute of Northampton

       (Each footnote goes to each legal text via this link  Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012)

(1285) first formal weapons control statutes in England

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

(1329) The Statute of Northampton was recorded. Being armed in public became illegal. 

(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 

 

Share this post


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

Can you talk us through it? It's pretty lengthy.  We'll need a version for dummies like me and for highbrow others.

I have other unbelievable Scalia writing. You first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pee Wee Herman is confident.

Jeff is a leading intellectual who is based on facts and has a low tolerance for outright lies. Shirley Jeff will be right back with intelligent Blackstone commentary.  Pee Wee is certain that Jeffie's posts will explain how five centuries of lawful gun control were adopted by the founding fathers.

Share this post


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

Can you talk us through it? It's pretty lengthy.  We'll need a version for dummies like me and for highbrow others.

I have other unbelievable Scalia writing. You first.

The gist of it is in the 1st couple of pages.  If you scroll down to Scalia's dissent, it doesn't take too long.  As you might have guessed, there are a lot of different points of view on this case, some tortured beyond belief, but basically Scalia looks like he's arguing that while the Federal Government cannot advocate for a particular religion, states are not bound by that restriction, which kind of ignores individual state laws, but more than a few commentators have said that Scalia is pushing some state to try it.   Scalia! ;)  So tongue in cheek!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Amati said:

The gist of it is in the 1st couple of pages.  If you scroll down to Scalia's dissent, it doesn't take too long.  As you might have guessed, there are a lot of different points of view on this case, some tortured beyond belief, but basically Scalia looks like he's arguing that while the Federal Government cannot advocate for a particular religion, states are not bound by that restriction, which kind of ignores individual state laws, but more than a few commentators have said that Scalia is pushing some state to try it.   Scalia! ;) 

BTW Tom Ray contributed some amazing liberalish contributions from Justice Scalia in Anonin's DTS thread.

 

 

Scalia wrote a defense of Heller and originalism, and Judge Posner tore it up.

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts

By Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner

Posner had been watching Scalia for quite a while, and didn't mind writing about him,

Quote

The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia

BY RICHARD A. POSNER (note: a conservative 7th  Circuit appeals court judge)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

Scalia and Garner ridicule a decision by the Supreme Court of Kansas (State ex rel. Miller v. Claiborne) that held that cockfighting did not violate the state’s law against cruelty to animals. They say that the court, in defiance of the dictionary, “perversely held that roosters are not ‘animals.’” When I read this, I found it hard to believe that a court would hold that roosters are not animals, so I looked up the case. I discovered that the court had not held that roosters are not animals. It was then that I started reading the other cases cited by Scalia and Garner.

(...) Thus they applaud White City Shopping Center, LP v. PR Restaurants, LLC, a decision that held that the word “sandwiches” in a lease did not include burritos, tacos, or quesadillas, because Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “sandwich” as “two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them.” Scalia and Garner stop there, as if that dictionary reference were the court’s entire decision, thus confirming the use of the dictionary as a guide to the meaning of legal documents.

(...)(Snipped) A problem that undermines their entire approach is the authors’ lack of a consistent commitment to textual originalism. They endorse fifty-seven “canons of construction,” or interpretive principles, and in their variety and frequent ambiguity these “canons” provide them with all the room needed to generate the outcome that favors Justice Scalia’s strongly felt views on such matters as abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, states’ rights, the death penalty, and guns.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

The gist of it is in the 1st couple of pages.  If you scroll down to Scalia's dissent, it doesn't take too long.  As you might have guessed, there are a lot of different points of view on this case, some tortured beyond belief, but basically Scalia looks like he's arguing that while the Federal Government cannot advocate for a particular religion, states are not bound by that restriction, which kind of ignores individual state laws, but more than a few commentators have said that Scalia is pushing some state to try it.   Scalia! ;)  So tongue in cheek!

Why is it more "useful" to consider his opinion in that case than, say, his opinion in the Raich case, when evaluating whether or not the second amendment was written to apply inside the home?

I don't see the connection the case you cited has to this topic. What's "useful" about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's review the situation. In the spirit of Scalia and his primary scholars basing their individual rights theories on English history, we document  500  years of weapons control history (see Post 639, the third presentation of English weapons basics) culminating in Blackstone's views.  Their rights were poor. Superior patriots and bright intellectuals on our forums, posers spouting The Federalist,  can't step up man to man, in good faith, and discuss Tom Ray's thread topic. Do I get it right so far?

I suggest that the version of violent self defense history presented in Heller and MacDonald, to suggest widespread individual gun rights in Stuart England, was a snow job. That it needs a review after peer review. Further,  I suggest that self defense itself has a laughable legal foundation: Heller vs D.C.

What kind of patriots would proceed with a narrative based of false history? What kind of patriots would distort Blackstone, and why would they be motivated to do that?  

 

Standard Model urinal.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since much of this thread seems to be trying to get into Scallia's head, I'd suggest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/theater_dance/coming-to-a-theater-near-you-scalia-the-play/2014/02/26/6f59c916-9e6a-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html?utm_term=.5d04c574c20e

One of the more interesting issues that they talk about  is why Scallia wrote dissents in particular - as Scallia himself pointed it, by the time a dissent is published, the case is over.  It's not going to change anyone's mind.  So why do it?  Simply put, not everything he wrote was what he believed.  But what he wrote, he felt was absolutely critical to understanding context.  It's there to educate future Justices.  That's what an originalist does.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what our Supreme Court said about the topic issue back in 1895. Nothing in Heller or since reversed this. There were no dissents.

Quote

In our opinion, the court below erred in holding that the accused, while on his premises, outside of his dwelling house, was under a legal duty to get out of the way, if he could, of his assailant, who, according to one view of the evidence, had threatened to kill the defendant, in execution of that purpose had armed himself with a deadly weapon, with that weapon concealed upon his person went to the defendant's premises, despite the warning of the latter to keep away, and by word and act indicated his purpose to attack the accused. The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner and with a deadly weapon, and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

 

Share this post


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

Why is it more "useful" to consider his opinion in that case than, say, his opinion in the Raich case, when evaluating whether or not the second amendment was written to apply inside the home?

I don't see the connection the case you cited has to this topic. What's "useful" about it?

Comic relief?

Share this post


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

Here's what our Supreme Court said about the topic issue back in 1895. Nothing in Heller or since reversed this. There were no dissents.

 

Thanks for an actual discussion, Tom. Beard and the other cases it cites are pertinent...but they arrive a full century after the FF.  This forum participation is better than squirrell assault rifles, but supports my point.

The discussion here involves the concepts of self defense at the time of the FF transition. Scalia and Joyce were making shit up in Heller about individual run rights coming from England. The Beard case is Southern case law which shows Blackstone's basics began to devolve in the South twenty years after the wild west.

Thanks for Beard, I took some notes to discuss it later.

Share this post


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

Since much of this thread seems to be trying to get into Scallia's head, I'd suggest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/theater_dance/coming-to-a-theater-near-you-scalia-the-play/2014/02/26/6f59c916-9e6a-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html?utm_term=.5d04c574c20e

One of the more interesting issues that they talk about  is why Scallia wrote dissents in particular - as Scallia himself pointed it, by the time a dissent is published, the case is over.  It's not going to change anyone's mind.  So why do it?  Simply put, not everything he wrote was what he believed.  But what he wrote, he felt was absolutely critical to understanding context.  It's there to educate future Justices.  That's what an originalist does.  

 

Using originalism, one could confuse Santa Clause with Jack the Ripper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 9:58 AM, jocal505 said:

Old English Law firmly discouraged armed,violent self-defense, except in the living room or thereabouts. Did the FF change this? Where is any source for that claim?

...

 

Now that you know that a nearby pasture counts as "thereabouts" under Supreme Court precedent, can you figure out whether an attached garage is also "thereabouts" or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2017 at 3:29 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here's what our Supreme Court said about the topic issue back in 1895. Nothing in Heller or since reversed this. There were no dissents.

 

 

You have avoided the major issue of the lack of gun rights in Old England. The authorities collected guns after wars in England, and from dissenters in Wales, and Scotland; the common men used rocks and such during the riots of the 1700's--where were their weapons? (I am stating this situation as fact, I do not support it.) The militia captains ranted, in writing,  that nobody could or would clean a gun barrel. They weren't very into guns according to real scholars.  Seriously, Michael Belesiles is having the last laugh out there somewhere while tending a bar...

Tom Ray, you often speak as an expert on this subject of individual gun rights. You support Heller. Do you support the scholarship of Heller, meaning Joyce Lee Malcolm? How do you explain her conflict with the details within Blackstone's four volumes of jurism?

IMO you'll need dynamic support to sell violent, lethal self defense norms to the Supreme Court.

 

James_Madison bobblehead.jpg $23.99 a popAlexander Hamilton bobblehead.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find the Heller thread? OK I'll help. It's here:

Now for something relevant to this thread:

Now that you know that a nearby pasture counts as "thereabouts" under Supreme Court precedent, can you figure out whether an attached garage is also "thereabouts" or not?

Share this post


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

Can't find the Heller thread? OK I'll help. It's here:

Now for something relevant to this thread:

Now that you know that a nearby pasture counts as "thereabouts" under Supreme Court precedent, can you figure out whether an attached garage is also "thereabouts" or not?

201610211104img-yoo-hoo-hero_13215612223Jocal

Share this post


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

201610211104img-yoo-hoo-hero_13215612223Jocal

Tom is avoiding the the purpose and point of not physically advancing rights from the inner castle. In the well regulated society of Blackstone, gun mayhem was legal as a last resort only, in one's castle, after dutiful retreat. It's not to be stretched to the property line, to the line of sight, to the crops, to the barn (which Tom would attach to the house) to the boat, or to the country line. Gun rights are not freewheeling; they are not to be left to the volition of, or definitions of, Libertarian types. 

And Tom is being sneaky here To extend volitional shooting outside the home is called stand your ground Tom claims he is against that, so Tom should dial the outrage down, and accept the containment of underwear shots on porches and in garages.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you do think an attached garage is more like a distant barn than a part of the building to which it is attached?

OK, but that's ridiculous and won't sell to the public at large. We think of our garages as part of the building to which they are attached, even if the grabbers in Chicago government said it's not that way.

Share this post


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

 

20 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

201610211104img-yoo-hoo-hero_13215612223Jocal

Tom is avoiding the the purpose and point of not physically advancing rights from the inner castle. In the well regulated society of Blackstone, gun mayhem was legal as a last resort only, in one's castle, after dutiful retreat. It's not to be stretched to the property line, to the line of sight, to the crops, to the barn (which Tom would attach to the house) to the boat, or to the country line. Gun rights are not freewheeling; they are not to be left to the volition of, or definitions of, Libertarian types. 

And Tom is being sneaky here To extend volitional shooting outside the home is called stand your ground Tom claims he is against that, so Tom should dial the outrage down, and accept the containment of underwear shots on porches and in garages.

Holy shit dude, Fred Astaire had nothing on you when it comes to tap dance skilz.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I discussed "thereabouts" directly. The meaning of the law is found in the intent of containing violent self defense to the home only. Yes, Jeff, THE TERMS OF ENGLISH COURTS REJECTED VIGILANTE LOGIC.  If you want endless semantics games about "thereabouts," yer on your own, you dimestore bully.

You have said little, Jeff, and you have added nothing but a beverage container pic to an extended discussion of outdoor gun rights (if there are any). You claimed these outdoor gun rights are NOT to be determined. You are a leading intellectual bully who posted a few outdoor understandings of Heller. You fail to draw intelligent, working connections between English History and the Second Amendment. You said Heller's "preferatory clause" was a preamble, not a clause. WTF>

You are superior and spout off a lot, but haven't read Heller? You hosted the Heller thread, but were confused about the basics of Heller four years after the ruling?

Four years after Heller, Jeff?

Quote

Sportbloat Jeff  On 3/7/2012  at 6:04 AM, JBSF said:

I don't pay that close attention to the SC rulings, but did Heller v DC only limit the ruling to inside the home? I didn't realize it was that narrow. Or even worse that there is a distinction between inside and outside a property.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I discussed "thereabouts" directly. The meaning of the law is found in the intent of containing violent self defense to the home only.

 

No you didn't. You used the word once.

And you've already forgotten the holding in Beard. The British may have had the intent you allege 500 years ago but they're not our Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court said a man can defend himself in his nearby pasture.

So which is closer to the home: a nearby pasture or a garage that's part of the building?

 

Share this post


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

No you didn't. You used the word once.

And you've already forgotten the holding in Beard. The British may have had the intent you allege 500 years ago but they're not our Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court said a man can defend himself in his nearby pasture.

So which is closer to the home: a nearby pasture or a garage that's part of the building?

 

What part of "in the home" do you not understand?

Five centuries of public non-violence was enforced in England, and we adopted those very laws in the USA, according to scholars who dispute CATO writers.

You are lawyering away here, on swamp gas. Beard is your new case law for Hamilton doing "stand your ground" fighting. The major Marianas Islands ruling is your case law for Benjamin Franklin packing AW's on the streets. Have Joyce Malcolm write a brief or two for you...

 

 

You agree that we find 500 years of containing personal violence to one's home. When and where was that reversed by the FF?

Where is the proper discussion for such a major change in the timeframe of the FF, not Beard? 

How did the armed violence work out for the USA?

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  
Followers 0