• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

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

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Recommended Posts

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

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
On 7/22/2017 at 4:22 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

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

Note: "Shootist Jeff" must avoid the gun threads, he can't keep up. LMFAO. Jeffie's claim that the Second Amendment has been over-discussed is ignorant: even under pressure, the SC won't advance gun rights beyond the home's interior nine years after Heller. In the interim, the pattern is that the state courts and district courts take up the slack by legally implementing a variety of restrictions. 

This week the Wrenn decision favored Jeff's gun rights cause in a partial sitting of the D.C. circuit court. IIRC, the SA Gun Club hasn't had a favorable ruling since Moore vs Madigan, the day before Sandy Hook. No victory lap? No crowing with Alan Gura, from the steps of the Wrenn courhouse? Why so mum, boys?

David Hardy's brief included outrage that a rock star was granted a gun permit. He was critical of NY officials being granted gun permits, in a world Mr. Hardy has made dangerous with poorly restricted weapons.

I suppose the full circuit court will agree to review Wrenn within fourteen days. But yo, this is the same group which, under strict scrutiny guidelines, declared AW's unconstitutional in March of 2017.  (Two public AW attacks on police factored in the decision: the majority decision mentioned that mayhem repeatedly.)

If the fourth circuit  strategically refuses to review Wrenn at this level, it finally places the Wrenn decision (which conflicts four other circuits) before the SC.  

There will be plenty to discuss, Jeffie, to sort Heller. Curiously, the historical facts behind Heller, meaning the precepts of Blackstone and Northampton, once peer-reviewed, do not support vigilante-type self defense. Such "lower road" concepts have most certainly worked their way into our system, yes, but cannot be sourced from the founding fathers' Second Amendment in historical contest. 

Quote

 

Quote

360. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms, supra note 9, at 208; Brief for English/Early American Historians as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents at 14, McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521).

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Crickets. Shootist Jeff dare not come around the gun threads. And Pooplius is safer discussing boats, elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm here.  I am still not interested in engaging you with your tripe.  You could't form a coherent thought and express an opinion if I held a gun to your wife's head.  Instead you would try to save her with volumes of cunt-n-paste shit that no one reads anyway.  

Besides, if someone actually held a gun to your wife's head - I suspect she would just take it and shoot herself in the head rather than be subjected to anymore of your laborious droning on and on about english common law and heller.  

Share this post


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

Oh I'm here.  I am still not interested in engaging you with your tripe.  You could't form a coherent thought and express an opinion if I held a gun to your wife's head.  Instead you would try to save her with volumes of cunt-n-paste shit that no one reads anyway.  

Besides, if someone actually held a gun to your wife's head - I suspect she would just take it and shoot herself in the head rather than be subjected to anymore of your laborious droning on and on about english common law and heller.  

(Some of your post is very creepy. Will disregard.)

A sharp guy like you needs to be informed, Jeff. Think Wrenn case.

You claim you'll have your sweeping victory eventually, before the SC. You drank to that "success" on the Stoopid Law thread, after being defeated. The Wrenn case is your best ticket to the SC. It discusses Heller I, Heller II, Heller III, and Kachalsky, and each touches on Joyce Malcolm's historical self-defense claims. The were made in Heller and quoted by Mr. Scalia, but this legal brief lawyering is challenged by the vetted historians. The treatment of Blackstone is so sketchy their history won't survive examination before the SC, even for indoor guns.

A path forward, incorporating the historical facts with Heller and MacDonald remaining intact, has been proposed. It's from Patrick Charles, USAF,  in the links provided. But fabricating history is bad precedent, for a lot of reasons.

Again, I must note that you and Tom, for all your superior airs, have failed to discuss this in good faith. Tom is  CATO messenger who will not acknowledge the scholarship of CATO?

Joyce in her prime.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2017 at 1:11 PM, 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?

 

Robert Levy buys junk, but if he saw the level of this input ^^^, I don't think he'd pay for it. 

This, below,  is you, coy and superior while quoting Joyce Malcolm.

Quote

Tom, fourth FF history submission, Heller majority opinion

 (Source unknown at this point.)

4866835  2A End-Run: Barry to Ban Bullets

If you didn't know it was Malcolm, you should have. If you did know, you wouldn't admit it.

Are you ashamed of Joyce? Why can't you type her name or acknowledge her (lying ass) accomplishments before the SC? Would you rather discuss Sandy Levinson? I'm down with that, they both have the same problem of making shit up by leaving shit out. 

Joyce has had 34 years to answer peer questions from Lois Schwoerer. She is excoriated by the classy Patrick Charles. Why the unprofessional silence from her?

Do you think she's a popular professor at George Mason U?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your link goes to a page where I posted a couple of times and quoted no one. Try to figure out the post linking thing.

While you're at it, here are a couple of questions to ponder:

Has our Supreme Court ever spoken about the right of citizens "to keep and carry arms wherever they went?"

Have they spoken about a person's right to defend himself "while on his premises, outside his dwelling house?"

Share this post


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

Your link goes to a page where I posted a couple of times and quoted no one. Try to figure out the post linking thing.

While you're at it, here are a couple of questions to ponder:

Has our Supreme Court ever spoken about the right of citizens "to keep and carry arms wherever they went?"

Have they spoken about a person's right to defend himself "while on his premises, outside his dwelling house?"

You wouldn't answer for the scholars behind your post then, and you won't now. This link lays out your vacuum of historical documentation at that time. We find vageueness, hinting, and superior coyness...but NO NAME ON SCALIA'S HISTORY.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/163762-concealed-carry-reciprocity/&do=findComment&comment=4862663

Hey, asshole, I chased you around the mulberry bush in 2015 to get you to name Scalia's source. The front page of the Heller decision was your answer, pretty gamey. Pretty superior, and made of solid hubris.

You want me to answer questions, but you haven't answered mine. The pattern of avoidance is noted, it hides your shitty group of scholars mate.

Before opening your links, I suspect a rick roll... or a timeframe distracting from our discussion, the FF's mentality WRT guns outside the home, the rightful heart and soul of the thread topic.

Quote

From Scribble Scrabble, Patrick J. Charles

Take for instance James Davis’s 1774 treatise, entitled The Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, which stated the Statute stood for the premise that “unusual and offensive Weapons” were prohibited “among the great Concourse of the People.”[91] While there is room for debate as to what weapons would have qualified as “dangerous,” “unusual,” or “offensive,” there is substantiated evidence to suggest that loaded firearms and pistols qualified in populated areas. This is supported by eighteenth century ordinances in Boston and Newburyport. As early as 1746 Boston made it unlawful for any person to “discharge any Gun or Pistol charged with Shot or Ball in town,” including “any Part of the Harbour between the Castle of said Town[.]”[92] This ordinance was reaffirmed in 1768 by the Boston Selectmen, which included John Hancock.[93] The ordinance was required because “divers of the Inhabitants have been lately surprized and endangered by the firing of Muskets charged with Shot or Ball on the Neck, Common, and other Parts of the Town[.]”[94] Exceptions in both ordinances were given to militia during times of muster.[95] However, there were no exceptions for personal self-defense. In 1785, the town of Newburyport, Massachusetts adopted a similar provision:

 

Share this post


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

Before opening your links, I suspect a rick roll.

They're links to Supreme Court decisions on findlaw.com and justia.com.

I can see how someone like yourself, who doesn't know the difference between a fourth amendment case and a fifth amendment case, would be repelled by the idea of actually reading Supreme Court cases. I didn't expect you to actually do it.

Share this post


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

They're links to Supreme Court decisions on findlaw.com and justia.com.

I can see how someone like yourself, who doesn't know the difference between a fourth amendment case and a fifth amendment case, would be repelled by the idea of actually reading Supreme Court cases. I didn't expect you to actually do it.

I don't appreciate your cutesy labels, especially when they lead to SC court cases insinuating your shifty case law and disinformation. 

 

Your links are Beard and Scott, for the third or fourth time. Their case law arrives a century late. It does not support or explain the mores of the FF, or the motivations behind the Second Amendment. These cases do not support Joyce Malcolm's lousy work either.

Quote

1799, terror in a Colonial-era church

89. (...) For contemporaneous evidence that one would generally have to “present” a loaded pistol and that it would have been seen as terrifying, see William Duane, A Report of the Extraordinary Transactions Which Took Place at Philadelphia, in February 1799, at 9–10 (Phila., Office of the Aurora 1799)

(The testimony of Lewis Ryan was transcribed as follows: “He then pulled out a pistol and presented it towards the body of J.Gallagher . . . which part of the body, he could not expressly say. I supposed the person who pulled out the pistol to be insulting the congregation by some means or other . . . . I felt very much alarmed at the sight of fire-arms, and I did not know how to act in the business, for it was difficult to engage with a man having fire-arms . . . .”); id. at 43

(In light of the evidence, Judge Cox issued the following charge to the jury: “We do not see [the defendant] as a peaceable citizen now. Where is this good, this quiet man? [N]o, he has a loaded pistol in his pocket; thus armed, he throws the gauntlet, by this he invited insult; he puts the whole church at defiance; he says come on with you, I am now ready for you. He seems to have wished to be attack . . . .”).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the founding era, General Washington repeatedly ordered the militia to fight outdoors. He wasn't particularly happy with the results, but he did order it.

He never ordered them to stay in their homes because that's the only place they were allowed to be armed.

Now...

Has our Supreme Court ever spoken about the right of citizens "to keep and carry arms wherever they went?"

Have they spoken about a person's right to defend himself "while on his premises, outside his dwelling house?"

Of course they have. What they have never done is said the second amendment applies in the home only.

Share this post


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

In the founding era, General Washington repeatedly ordered the militia to fight outdoors. He wasn't particularly happy with the results, but he did order it.

He never ordered them to stay in their homes because that's the only place they were allowed to be armed.

Now...

Has our Supreme Court ever spoken about the right of citizens "to keep and carry arms wherever they went?"

Have they spoken about a person's right to defend himself "while on his premises, outside his dwelling house?"

Of course they have. What they have never done is said the second amendment applies in the home only.

Tom, you seem short of material, and out of touch with the current amicus briefs. You seem particularly weak on the innards of Wrenn and fallout from Kachalsky.

 

Quote

On Gun Laws, We Must Get the History Right       By Priya Satia

Understanding who carried weapons in the 17th century could determine where you may carry a gun today. 

(...) A group of legal historians has disputed this interpretation in an amicus brief filed this month, followed by an essay in the Washington Post by David Kopel, adjunct professor at Denver University’s law school. They claim the English Bill of Rights of 1689 superseded the 1328 statute and that, “There was a lot of weapons-carrying in England.” Thus, they conclude, D.C. residents have the right to carry guns in public. But their English history is wrong, as are their conclusions about public carry in the nation’s capital.

The ignorance of fresh recruits at the start of each war confirms that firearms were not familiar objects...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Happily,   though, the  state  of  the  law  in  Chaucer’s England—or for that matter Shakespeare’s or Cromwell’s—is not  decisive  here. Heller  I holds that  by  the  time  of  the Founding, the “preexisting right” enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute.

 

Share this post


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

(Typical Pooplius:cryptic superiority followed by unsourced snippet)

Ah yes. The Heller conclusions.  Now the quality of the Heller facts and reasoning become pertinent. Garbage in, garbage out. Joyce baby mangled Blackstone's precepts, while quoting his name 18 times in the opening pages.

Tom, you've made no comment on the quality of Joyce Lee Malcolm. You have not even recognized her work, which was sponsored by and presented by CATO. What's up with that?

Why can't you get behind or in front of your own libertarian "message"? You can't type the name of Heller's primary scholar, or comment on CATO's production?

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can offer the two of you a King bed, smoking room unless you'd prefer two doubles.

Share this post


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

Unsourced? I thought I was talking to an expert on the Wrenn injunction?

You didn't even read it or you would have known the source.

You didn't read my comments on it in the relevant thread or you would know the source.

Start reading before you post.

You are a slimy one. We source our information on these threads. Nobody is responsible for memorizing documents to place another's sources.

Tom, how did Joyce, the Libertarian historianan, miss so much of the culture of the FF?

Quote

No shooting in Boston, please

92. An Act to Prevent the Firing of Guns Laden with Shot or Ball in the Town of Boston, reprinted in Boston Weekly News-Letter, Sept. 18, 1746, at 2.

93. Record Commissioners of the City of Boston, Selectmen’s Minutes from 1764 through 1768, at 307 (Boston, Rockwell & Churchill 1889).

94. The Boston Post-Boy & Advertiser, Sept. 5, 1768, at 1.

95Id.; Act to Prevent the Firing of Guns Laden with Shot or Ball in the Town of Boston, supra note 92.

 

Quote

No shooting in Portland ME, please

On October 26, 1786 the following was passed into law by the Massachusetts Assembly:

That from & after the publication of this act, if any persons, to the number of twelve, or more, being armed with clubs or other weapons; or if any number of persons, consisting of thirty, or more, shall be unlawfully, routously, rioutously or tumultuously assembled, any Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, or Deputy . . . or Constable . . . shall openly make [a] proclamation [asking them to disperse, and if they do not disperse within one hour, the officer is] . . . empowered, to require the aid of a sufficient number of persons in arms . . . and if any such person or persons [assembled illegally] shall be killed or wounded, by reason of his or their resisting the persons endeavouring to disperse or seize them, the said Justice, Sheriff, Deputy-Sheriff, Constable and their assistants, shall be indemnified, and held guiltless.

An Act to Prevent Routs, Riots, and Tumultuous Assemblies, and the Evil Consequences Thereof, reprinted in Cumberland Gazette (Portland, Me.), Nov. 17, 1786, at 1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shooting in Portland ME, please

On October 26, 1786 the following was passed into law by the Massachusetts Assembly:

That from & after the publication of this act, if any persons, to the number of twelve, or more, being armed with clubs or other weapons; or if any number of persons, consisting of thirty, or more, shall be unlawfully, routously, rioutously or tumultuously assembled, any Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, or Deputy . . . or Constable . . . shall openly make [a] proclamation [asking them to disperse, and if they do not disperse within one hour, the officer is] . . . empowered, to require the aid of a sufficient number of persons in arms . . . and if any such person or persons [assembled illegally] shall be killed or wounded, by reason of his or their resisting the persons endeavouring to disperse or seize them, the said Justice, Sheriff, Deputy-Sheriff, Constable and their assistants, shall be indemnified, and held guiltless.

An Act to Prevent Routs, Riots, and Tumultuous Assemblies, and the Evil Consequences Thereof, reprinted in Cumberland Gazette (Portland, Me.), Nov. 17, 1786, at 1.

 

Dumbass - it is a call for ARMED PERSONS to assist the Sheriff in putting down a riot - for that to stand would imply that there were armed men in sufficient #s ready and able to respond to the sheriff's request.  No shooting?  Where does it say that.  Dumbass. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites