Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.

Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2019 at 9:42 AM, bpm57 said:

Is there any particular reason that you are in love with 9 year old data that shows a decreasing rate, Joe?

You have to go back 7 years to find out. The answer is: if you start with 1999 as a baseline, you can get the desired results.

But getting back on topic,

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

Quote

 

The narrow issue in this case is whether forbidding transport by premises licensees of their locked and unloaded handguns to any place other than the two places specified in 38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-23(a) (“the Rule”) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. But to reach that issue, it must first be clarified whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Some courts have held that, without further guidance from this Court, they will not “extend” the principles in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), outside the home.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland characterized as “dicta” the statement in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010), that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” It refused to recognize any Second Amendment right outside the home, stating “If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

 

The presumption that second amendment rights exist only in the home because Heller and McDonald were about possession in the home is absurd and would not be tolerated if we were talking about any other right.

But like the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to technology that is developed after it was written, the idea that we didn't have indoor militias seems to be one that the Supreme Court is going to have to shove down the unwilling throats of certain circuit courts. I hope they do it unanimously again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.
 

Quote

 

One cannot even possess a handgun in New York City without going through an extraordinarily long, costly, intrusive, and discretionary licensing process. See Part II.B., below. There are several types of carry licenses in addition to the premises license at issue here. According to public records obtained by the New York Times, there are about 37,000 licensed individuals and nearly 4,000 of those have carry licenses. Jo Craven McGinty, The Rich, the Famous, the Armed, NEW YORK TIMES (Feb. 18, 2011).4 These licensees do not include the 14,602 retired police officers who are licensed to have a handgun. Id. Thus, if things have not changed drastically over the past few years, there are something like 33,000 civilian premises license-holders in the city.

The Census Bureau estimates New York City’s population to be 8,398,748 as of July 1, 2018.6 In the most recent census, 79% of the city’s residents were 18 years old or older. Applying that percentage to the 2018 data, there are currently about 6,635,010 adults in the city. Thus, based on the number of premises licenses referenced above, less than one-half of one percent of adults in New York City can legally possess a handgun at home under a premises license. Even members of this tiny minority are forbidden by the Rule to transport their handguns outside the home except to a range in the city or while hunting in designated areas of New York State.7 The only individuals who can carry or transport their handguns outside the home without those limitations are those 4,000 individuals with carry permits, who constitute only .0006 of the adult population of the city.


 

For all the talk of "1%-ers" it turns out that The Rich, the Famous, the Armed are actually "0.0006%-ers."

The idea that only a tiny minority of the elite should be allowed to exercise their rights would not be tolerated in the context of any other part of the Bill of Rights but no restriction goes too far for gungrabby extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

Quote

The Court’s statement that petitioners are “free to participate in [out-of-city] shooting competitions with a rented firearm” is unrealistic. Pet.App.28. Even if some type of rental gun was available, the assumption that anyone would shoot in a competition with a rented firearm is as implausible as assuming that an individual would engage in skiing competitions with rented skis, or participate in off-road motorcycle competitions with a rental motorcycle. Shooting competitions also have rules regarding the types and features of handguns that can be used, and to suppose that ranges keep those specific firearms available for rental is at the very least unsubstantiated. Additionally, most competitions are held at gun clubs, and clubs rarely rent guns.

The previous owner of My Song may rent a boat to race but I don't know anyone else who does.

Share this post


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

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

The previous owner of My Song may rent a boat to race but I don't know anyone else who does.

You have never raced in a hot fleet. Most world-class sailors find they need two primo one-design boats (one for shipping and for trial horse purposes). They often buy their second boats from competitors after regattas.

For a hot regional regatta, top sailors will fly into town and use "chartered" boats, the sitting boats. I was in a fleet with Carl Buchan and Jon and Charlie McKee for a dozen years. The practice, a lease of sorts, was common up and down the west coast.

Share this post


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

You have never raced in a hot fleet. Most world-class sailors find they need two primo one-design boats (one for shipping and for trial horse purposes). They often buy their second boats from competitors after regattas.

For a hot regional regatta, top sailors will fly into town and use "chartered" boats, the sitting boats. I was in a fleet with Carl Buchan and Jon and Charlie McKee for a dozen years. The practice, a lease of sorts, was common up and down the west coast.

It's true that I'm a casual racer at best but people flying in hotshots to race their other boat are not "chartering" it. They're flying in hotshots to race their other boat.

In any case, as the amicus brief notes,
 

Quote

 

practicing with one’s own handgun” is overwhelmingly recognized as vitally important among police and civilian instructors. Every handgun is different, even among similar models. There are nearly infinite combinations of barrel lengths, sights, grips, weight of trigger pulls, finishes, calibers, and other features. Even with identical models, the point of impact on the target may vary among individual handguns. The shooter must regularly confirm that the gun, and its magazines if a semi-automatic, are functioning properly with the exact same ammunition the shooter intends to use for self-defense. A shooter cannot do this if he or she has to use a rented gun at a range outside the city. In addition, many ranges that do rent guns require that these be used only with the range’s own ammunition, not ammunition the shooter brings. Even within a single caliber, ammunition varies by type of powder, amount of powder, and bullet weight and type, among other factors. Different kinds of ammunition will often shoot to a different point of impact on the target. Some kinds of ammunition may not function well in particular semi-automatics, causing jams.

Reasons like these are why virtually every police department in the country requires its officers to qualify with their own issued handguns, not just another handgun of the same model.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

Quote

 

The centerpiece of respondents’ argument is a declaration from a police official which states that “license holders in a public setting are just as susceptible as anyone else to stressful situations” including “driving situations that sometimes lead to or have the potential to lead to road rage incidents, the stress and injury of traffic accidents, crowd situations, demonstrations, family disputes, all other types of disputes between individuals, being a victim of a crime or harassment, and any other stress-inducing circumstance outside of the home.” Lunetta Declaration, JA 77. The implication is that a licensee who is transporting his locked, unloaded handgun to a range outside the city is likely to snap and start shooting at the least provocation. The Second Circuit expressly relied on that declaration for purposes of intermediate scrutiny interest balancing. Pet.App.26.

The statement that premises licensees are “just as susceptible as anyone else” to losing control and committing violent crimes is untrue. As shown below, licensees undergo searching scrutiny before obtaining a license, comparable groups of permit holders from other jurisdictions have repeatedly been shown to be far more law-abiding than the population as a whole, and most violent crime is committed by individuals with a criminal history who are ineligible to obtain a license.

 

That's correct but not amusing. It's funnier to me to point out that all the background checking and screening to make sure people are wealthy enough to have gun rights just doesn't work, as Loonetta says. So stop doing it.

Share this post


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

It's true that I'm a casual racer at best but people flying in hotshots to race their other boat are not "chartering" it. They're flying in hotshots to race their other boat.
 

 

 

This is what you stated, sir.  You don't get around. And you pivoted to avoid my point. 

On 6/19/2019 at 7:55 AM, jocal505 said:
On 6/19/2019 at 6:29 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The previous owner of My Song may rent a boat to race but I don't know anyone else who does.

I described the way it is, in many situations.

The hotshots, like Dennis Connor, choose to fly around, seeking competition in other back yards. DC wrote about flying home from Seattle with a trophy, and that Star boat may have been loaned by Bill Buchan, not leased. Small boat guys would fly in for weeknight Laser races, to face Carl Buchan, using borrowed boats, as a courtesy of others.

But in fleets like the Stars, 505's, Fireballs, and 470's, I know first-hand that top guys and gals would charter someone's race-ready boat, tow it to say San Diego, race it, and bring it back. There was a fee agreed between them, just like a rental. Hence, boat "charters" at a world-class level. I would deliver such boats on occasion, on a triple trailer.

Share this post


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

But in fleets like the Stars, 505's, Fireballs, and 470's, I know first-hand that top guys and gals would charter someone's race-ready boat, tow it to say San Diego, race it, and bring it back. There was a fee agreed between them, just like a rental. Hence, boat "charters" at a world-class level. I would deliver such boats on occasion, on a triple trailer.

OK, so you know some people that I don't. Now I've heard of renting boats to race, though I doubt anyone would prefer a rental that is "race ready" to his own boat.

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I described the way it is, in many situations.

So did this and several other amicus briefs in saying:
 

Quote

 

practicing with one’s own handgun” is overwhelmingly recognized as vitally important among police and civilian instructors. Every handgun is different, even among similar models. There are nearly infinite combinations of barrel lengths, sights, grips, weight of trigger pulls, finishes, calibers, and other features. Even with identical models, the point of impact on the target may vary among individual handguns. The shooter must regularly confirm that the gun, and its magazines if a semi-automatic, are functioning properly with the exact same ammunition the shooter intends to use for self-defense. A shooter cannot do this if he or she has to use a rented gun at a range outside the city. In addition, many ranges that do rent guns require that these be used only with the range’s own ammunition, not ammunition the shooter brings. Even within a single caliber, ammunition varies by type of powder, amount of powder, and bullet weight and type, among other factors. Different kinds of ammunition will often shoot to a different point of impact on the target. Some kinds of ammunition may not function well in particular semi-automatics, causing jams.

Reasons like these are why virtually every police department in the country requires its officers to qualify with their own issued handguns, not just another handgun of the same model.

 

Do you think that because a few pro's used to rent sailboats it means that those police departments are being unreasonable?

I don't. I think they know what everyone who shoots knows: that it's best to use a gun and ammo to which you are accustomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

Quote

 

The closest thing to a factual assertion to attempt to justify R.C.N.Y § 5-23(a) as promoting public safety is Inspector Lunetta’s assertion that:

  • Since the elimination of the Target license in 2001, investigations have revealed a large volume and pattern of premises license holders who are found in possession of their handguns in violation of the restrictions on their license. JA 81.

There are two problems with this statement.

First, what constitutes a “large volume and pattern” over those years? Surely the License Division keeps records of what it does and finds. Respondents could have provided some actual data to show the number and nature of these purported violations, but did not.

Second, improper transportation does not mean that public safety has been harmed. The Lunetta Declaration provides not one shred of evidence that these licensees committed violent crimes while transporting handguns.

 

The brief also notes that a report is required for any such violation, so NY has complete information about the alleged "large volume and pattern" of violations.

You'd think they would share it, if it really showed the problem that Loonetta alleges.

But they didn't. Probably because it doesn't show any such thing.

Share this post


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

practicing with one’s own handgun” is overwhelmingly recognized as vitally important among police and civilian instructors.

I hope you are not equating half-assed civilian shooters with the police here.

You are re-enforcing violent gunplay, down at the range. And you are  re-enforcing each others' violent justifications. You are germinating a sick culture at gun ranges, while the sick culture is dying off.

 

The NY law may be going too far, but the alternative is what we are living today. Ian Stawicki was driving all over WA with six large handguns, when he shouldn't have been allowed one small one.  He shot a bluegrass kid I know DS. His having a gun, and driving around with it, under the auspices of "must issue" BTW, was stupid shit.

Enough dogballs.

Share this post


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

I hope you are not equating half-assed civilian shooters with the police here.

No, having read some of the amicus briefs, I know that the few, wealthy, connected NY'ers who can get a gun permit are statistically less violent than the police, so I would not bring them down to the level of the cops.

Share this post


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

You are re-enforcing violent gunplay, down at the range.

I guess firearm proficiency is something that is developed by not doing it, unlike every other skill - right Joe?

Will you be calling for disarming the police next?

6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Ian Stawicki was driving all over WA with six large handguns, when he shouldn't have been allowed one small one.  He shot a bluegrass kid I know DS. His having a gun, and driving around with it, under the auspices of "must issue" BTW, was stupid shit.

I can see your understanding of "shall issue" is still lacking. But your love of "maybe, but probably not issue" shines through.

Can you tell us why your use of an AW to threaten someone is acceptable, while it isn't acceptable for anyone else to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every policeman should carry a gun.  Simply graduating from a police academy doesn’t earn them that privilege. I’d say 50% could be disarmed and public safety would be enhanced.

Gun simulators are an excellent tool in teaching firearm proficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How To Legally Inherit Your Father's Revolver In NY
 

Quote

 

...

To fully appreciate how inappropriate these charges are, we decided to find out exactly what it takes to obtain a pistol permit in Oneida County—again, the only thing Stolarczyk allegedly failed to do properly here.

It turns out that, after a lengthy investigation, we’re still not certain we fully understand the process. Our best educated guess is something like the following:

First, anyone interested in owning a handgun must pick up the application in person, which can only be done at the Oneida County Office Building. But prepare to take time off work, because this building is only open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., and 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Alternatively, if you live on the opposite side of the county and want to avoid a 50-minute drive to Utica, you can try the Griffiss Business and Technology Park office, open on Thursdays between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m.

Once at the Office of Pistol Licensing, you’ll need to present a New York state driver’s license proving that you’re at least 21 years old and have lived in Oneida County for at least one year.

You also must provide a certificate of completion for an NRA Basic Pistol Course, which lasts approximately eight hours and must be led by a county-approved instructor.

After calling many of the recommended instructors, we learned that the introductory course can cost anywhere between $40 and $165 and that classes aren’t necessarily offered on a regular basis.

Further, had we not called these instructors and the licensing office itself for clarification, it would have been nearly impossible to determine which courses Oneida County does and does not accept to meet the requirement.

Finally, after paying a $10 processing fee to the county, you can receive the application form and begin the process of seeking the county’s permission to own a gun in your own home.

The application itself consists of five parts, which must be completed in black ink, and all signatures on the form must be notarized. Two identical head shot photographs no larger than 2 x 2 inches must be attached to the application.

Each application also requires four notarized character references from individuals 21 years of age or older, who are not related to the applicant, and who reside in Oneida County.

After completing the application, you will be responsible for paying several additional fees for processing and fingerprinting. These include $150 to the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office, $100 to the Utica Police Department, or $50 to the Rome Police Department, depending on the jurisdiction in which you reside.

All payments must be made through a postal money order, which requires a trip to the post office—and possibly additional research if, like many people, you have no idea what a postal money order is or where to get one.

There will then be a six-month waiting period for processing, after which you’ll be informed whether your application was accepted or denied. Denials can occur for a myriad of reasons, including seemingly arbitrary determinations by the application processor that you are not “of good moral character.”

An Onerous Burden

This is the complex and costly system that Stolarczyk—who couldn’t afford to keep his lights on—needed to navigate in order to legally own the revolver that may have saved his life.

...

 

No burden is too onerous when it comes to this particular right, which is why Mr. Stolarczyk is looking at up to 4 years in prison.

 

Share this post


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

I guess firearm proficiency is something that is developed by not doing it, unlike every other skill - right Joe?

Will you be calling for disarming the police next?

I can see your understanding of "shall issue" is still lacking. But your love of "maybe, but probably not issue" shines through.

Can you tell us why your use of an AW to threaten someone is acceptable, while it isn't acceptable for anyone else to do so?

Hi there DeadEye. Do you have a wife, or a teddy bear? 

You seem to be an unhappy person who can't tell the difference between a dogballs and an AW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 1:56 AM, Importunate Tom said:

You have to go back 7 years to find out. The answer is: if you start with 1999 as a baseline, you can get the desired results.

You fucker. You turkey. You bully.

I was a new voice here  early in 2012. You tried to beat me up with that useless FDLE document, using a non-argument, and flatulent threats. You insisted a very real 45% spike in gun crime, in Florida FFS, was merely propaganda. It wasn't. You were hiding something: a second, yuge, 45% spike in gun deaths in Florida, five years after the first.

You were a cheap little man then, without graciousness. I was just beginning to get the picture, and you haven't changed much.

Let's review: beginning in 1999, a gun problem in Florida became very apparent, and Tom, the big man on campus,  hit the fog machine. Then it got even worse, in the land of the dogballs...

aa FL SYG gun deaths chart.jpg

Share this post


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

You seem to be an unhappy person who can't tell the difference between a dogballs and an AW.

You have expressed endless admiration of NJ's old AW law - and you owned one of those evil AWs - I'll just call it what NJ did for 20+ years, and you can sit there and pretend you didn't own one. I guess admitting you owned one would cause your head to implode or something..

 

Share this post


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

 

aa FL SYG gun deaths chart.jpg

If "1990s" starts at 1990, then there are over 50% more people in FL now then when the chart starts. That is why, Joe, honest people discuss the rate, which in 2017 was about half the rate it was in 1990.

I know, your favorite grabber groups prefer to use misleading charts..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

Quote

 

The New York State requirements for a premises license are quite restrictive, and the relevant portion of N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1) is worth setting forth at length: Eligibility. ... No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant

...

(e) who is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802;

...

(i) who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness;

...

Besides all felonies, § 400.00(1)(c) references “serious offenses” that make an individual ineligible for a license. These include:

the offenses defined in article two hundred thirty-five [obscenity, disseminating indecent material to a minor]; issuing abortional articles; permitting prostitution;


 

 

So, no potheads (yeah, right).

More of the usual assumption that mental illness means violent behavior, an inaccurate slur that @Ed Lada is better qualified to refute.

More Puritanism about sex. Fucking obscenity is how sailors talk, isn't it?

I had to look up "issuing abortional articles"

Quote

A person is guilty of issuing abortional articles when he manufactures, sells or delivers any instrument, article, medicine, drug or substance with intent that the same be used in unlawfully procuring the miscarriage of a female. Issuing abortional articles is a class B misdemeanor.

I'm sure such an attempt to control the bodies of women would be objectionable in another context, but if it can prevent only one gun sale... no problem.

"Permitting prostitution" is another example of trying to deny Her Body, Her Choice. And again, it would be objectionable in another context, but if it can prevent only one gun sale... no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2019 at 7:17 AM, jocal505 said:

You fucker. You turkey. You bully.

I was a new voice here  early in 2012. You tried to beat me up with that useless FDLE document, using a non-argument, and flatulent threats. You insisted a very real 45% spike in gun crime, in Florida FFS, was merely propaganda. It wasn't. You were hiding something: a second, yuge, 45% spike in gun deaths in Florida, five years after the first.

You were a cheap little man then, without graciousness. I was just beginning to get the picture, and you haven't changed much.

Let's review: beginning in 1999, a gun problem in Florida became very apparent, and Tom, the big man on campus,  hit the fog machine. Then it got even worse, in the land of the dogballs...

aa FL SYG gun deaths chart.jpg

“New voice in 2012”?  You joined in August of 2012.

Tedious Tom is a joke and is incapable of bullying anyone without a gun.  You must have been pummeled in grade school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brief amici curiae of National Sheriffs Association, et al. filed.

Quote

New York City imposes additional restrictions that go far beyond these state restrictions. An individual may be denied a license on grounds the “applicant has been arrested, indicted, or convicted for a crime or violation except minor traffic violations, in any federal, state or local jurisdiction.” 38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-10(a). There is no limitation on the severity of the violation; failing to obtain a dog license or spitting on the sidewalk could suffice. A license may also be denied if the applicant “has a poor driving history, has multiple driver license suspensions or has been declared a scofflaw by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles,” id., § 5-10(h); “has been terminated from employment under circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment or lack of good moral character,” id., § 5-10(j); or “has failed to pay legally required debts such as child support, taxes, fines or penalties imposed by governmental authorities,” id., § 5-10(l). In addition, the application may be denied if “[o]ther information demonstrates an unwillingness to abide by the law, a lack of candor towards lawful authorities, a lack of concern for the safety of oneself and/or other persons and/or for public safety, and/or other good cause for the denial of the license.”

I think some here might see the problem here if a minor arrest were enough to deny voting rights. Do we really want people who have been arrested or fired from a job to be determining our political leaders?

 

Share this post


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

“New voice in 2012”?  You joined in August of 2012.

Tedious Tom is a joke and is incapable of bullying anyone without a gun.  You must have been pummeled in grade school.

Check your facts, big guy.

I joined SA in 2010. Spent a few years beating up on DoRag on GA. We became friends. He was a warrior recovering from a  war, long after the war.

As I said, Tom came after me in 2012, called me out using threats and bullshit as weapons. Tom was loud, established,  incessant, wrong, and unrelenting. 

Tom's race-baiting was a general feature at that time. I waited three years to challenge it.

Share this post


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

Check your facts, big guy.

I joined SA in 2010. Spent a few years beating up on DoRag on GA. We became friends. He was a warrior recovering from a  war, long after the war.

As I said, Tom came after me in 2012, called me out using threats and bullshit as weapons. Tom was loud, established,  incessant, wrong, and unrelenting. 

Tom's race-baiting was a general feature at that time. I waited three years to challenge it.

Liar.  You started whining about race baiting (after making racist statements about nine months ago).  Only a pussy would be intimidated by Tom’s droning about his dogballs.  I haven’t directly responded to him in quite a while cause he’s boring not threatening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2019 at 1:45 PM, bpm57 said:

You have expressed endless admiration of NJ's old AW law -

Not exactly. I have noted the grounds for objecting to an eighteen-shooter, and I have noted the prescience in play, and I have supported the State of NJ's right to control this dangerous consumer object. New Jersey was ahead of its time IMO. They saw this problem coming in the early nineties.

 

On 6/22/2019 at 1:45 PM, bpm57 said:

I guess admitting you owned one would cause your head to implode or something..

You are dizzy and making shit up, since my lifetime of gun ownership was readily admitted, and was the point of my  involvement .  .I wish gunz and I could have worked out, but I found the gun community, and its bottom line, to be unhealthy and ignorant.  Sorry, I seek better company than that, but I note your alleged satisfaction in such company.

Share this post


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

Liar.  You started whining about race baiting (after making racist statements about nine months ago).  Only a pussy would be intimidated by Tom’s droning about his dogballs.  I haven’t directly responded to him in quite a while cause he’s boring not threatening.

Where have you been? In a world where the sun rotates around Fakenews? Tom has 54,000 posts, and many of them display some OCD on racial violence, nothing more.

I confronted Tom, directly, @Importunate Tomabout his race-baiting for the first time on March 23, 2015. This animated the man,

We are still sorting the behavior.

 

Share this post


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

since my lifetime of gun ownership was readily admitted

Reading comprehension issues again, Joe? I'm talking about the AW you owned for years, the one you threatened someone with.. remember?

The one that you like to pretend wasn't an AW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 7:34 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Lots of goings-on in the NYC case

Quote

 

May 07 2019 Joint appendix filed.
May 07 2019 Brief of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.
May 13 2019 Brief amicus curiae of National African American Gun Association, Inc. filed.
May 13 2019 Amicus brief of Pink Pistols submitted.
May 13 2019 Amicus brief of The Madison Society Foundation, Inc. submitted.
May 13 2019 Amicus brief of ACADEMICS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT submitted.
May 14 2019 Brief amicus curiae of Second Amendment Law Professors filed.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of George K. Young submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Patrick J. Charles submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Firearms Policy Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Calguns Foundation submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Black Guns Matter submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, The Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Cato Institute submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Bradley Byrne and 119 Additional Memb ers of the United States House of Representatives submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of The Liberal Gun Club submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of ROBERT LEIDER submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of The States of Louisiana, et al. submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of American Civil Rights Union submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of UNITED STATES submitted.
May 14 2019 Amicus brief of Brady and Team ENOUGH submitted.

 

I want to read about half of those. But not today.

Just moving these to page 10 for easier access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Amicus brief of The Madison Society Foundation, Inc. submitted.
 

Quote

 

II. ARGUMENT SUMMARY

The Second Amendment has two clauses, one affirming the importance of a well regulated militia,the other guaranteeing the right of the people to keepand bear arms. The relationship between these two clauses has engendered debate within the Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), for example, the dissent argued that the militia clause“confirms that the Framers' single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.” Id. at643 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The majority treated the militia clause as a preamble to the arms clause, and discussed the role of preambles in construing operative clauses. Id. at 577-78.

We suggest that the relationship of the two clauses is best understood in light of their history and evolution.2 Neither was meant to or understood as limiting the scope of the other. The militia clause and the right to arms clause had separate origins, philosophical underpinnings, and were demanded by separate constituencies. They were only joined together at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788, the eleventh hour of the Framing. The phrasing of one as an apparent preamble to the other was more stylistic than substantive.

We further suggest that this bifurcated pedigree of the 1791 Second Amendment, along with a Fourteenth Amendment re-ratification in 1868, strongly implies that a personal, individual “right to keep and bear arms” is: (A) broader and more vigorous than any militia-based right; and (B) that neither of the two clauses is a limitation on the other; and (C) that both clauses support a liberal (not limiting) interpretation of the other.

 

Looks interesting and might explain why the Supreme Court heard the Miller, Heller, and McDonald cases despite no evidence that any of those people were in active militia service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief of The Madison Society Foundation, Inc. submitted.
 

Quote

 

Following the Civil War, even voluntary militia units faded out in the North; their membership had largely served in the Union armies during the war, and after four years of fighting, had little interest in additional service. Michael D. Doubler, CIVILIAN IN PEACE,SOLDIER IN WAR 110 (2003). By 1866, the universal militia of the early republic was long gone.The Second Amendment came to be seen as focused exclusively upon an individual right.

The Reconstruction Congress demonstrated this view when, in 1867, it voted to order dissolution of the Southern militias, Act of March 2, 1867, §6, 14 Stat.487, while refraining from disarming their members out of concern that individual disarmament would violate the Second Amendment.

The dissolution bill began as a proposal by Senator Wilson which would have commanded that the southern militias (which he denounced as bands of former rebels bent upon terrorizing the freedmen) “be forthwith disarmed and disbanded ....” CONG.GLOBE,39th Cong., 2nd Sess. at 1848 (Feb. 26, 1867). On the floor, Senator Willey objected: “It strikes me also that there may be some constitutional objection against depriving men of the right to bear arms and the total disarming of men in time of peace.” Id.

Senator Wilson responded that he was willing to“modify the amendment by striking out the word ‘disarmed.’ Then it will provide simply for disbanding these organizations.” Id. at 1849. Senator Willey found the amended bill, which dissolved militia units but preserved the individual right to arms for these former enemies, “much more acceptable to me than it was previously,” Id., and in that form it was enacted. Act of March 2, 1867, supra. See generally Stephen P. Halbrook, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED: THE EVOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT 135-42 (1984).

Thus, to the Framing generation of 1866-68, the Second Amendment was entirely about an individual right to arms. Any belief that it was meant to protect the militia as an institution – an institution then dead for decades – had entirely vanished.

In sum, in 1789-91 there were Americans who wanted to protect the militia as an institution, and those who wanted to protect an individual right to arms; the first clause of the Second Amendment was meant to reassure the first, and its second clause to satisfy the second. Neither clause should be taken to restrict or limit the other.

 

That's the kind of thing that prompted Lawrence Tribe to abandon the "collective rights" argument in his constitutional law textbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Amicus brief of Bradley Byrne and 119 Additional Memb ers of the United States House of Representatives submitted.

Quote

Twice in the last eleven years, the Court has considered the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In both instances, the Court concluded that the right to keep and bear arms to protect oneself is a fundamental, natural right that predates the Second Amendment.

But what about the third time the court considered the Second?

Quote

Under this approach, courts should analyze the text of the Second Amendment and the history and traditions of our nation to determine whether the Second Amendment protects the person seeking protection, the activity she seeks to protect, and the weapon she seeks to use.

The use of "she" indicates that there may at least be a vague awareness of Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice

Quote

But even if the courts of appeals were correct to apply a levels-of-scrutiny analysis, they should (at minimum) be applying strict scrutiny to any legal restriction that substantially burdens the core Second Amendment right to carry and use a weapon in self-defense—inside or outside the home.

Umm... Jaime Caetano was HOMELESS when she made the CHOICE to defend HER BODY.

But there's always that TeamD second amendment exception to general rules. Homeless people have rights, but can't have THAT right because it exists only in the home. Because we had indoor militias.

Quote

Instead of invalidating restrictions that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, the lower courts have deferred again and again to governments’ assertions about the public-safety implications the restrictions supposedly serve. The result has been to single out the Second Amendment for “special—and specially unfavorable—treatment.” Id.at 778. After all, “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” Id. at 783. Yet only the right the Second Amendment protects is treated so cavalierly by the lower courts. Cf. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. at 945 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene.”).

Thomas is right, but again, there's always that TeamD second amendment exception to how our rights should be treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.

Oh dear. They opened with a laughable lie.

Quote

Founded in 1871, the NRA has approximately five million members and is America’s leading provider of firearms marksmanship and safety training for civilians.

I guess.

18 hours ago, frenchie said:
On 6/28/2019 at 8:08 PM, -Dino said:

the 5,000,000 plus NRA members

LOL.


Makes me wonder why an enlightened place like NY would require an NRA pistol course in the law at issue in this case. Pretty hateful stuff. And divisive. And probably racist. Not that there's proof of any of that, it just must be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 2:04 PM, Importunate Tom said:

They were only joined together at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788, the eleventh hour of the Framing. The phrasing of one as an apparent preamble to the other was more stylistic than substantive.

How false. Between these two dates, the founders formed a committee, which carefully,  publicly sorted the second amendment, in 1792. They were sharp, and had in mind a force which needed to deal with Napoleons. Go read the MIlitia Act of 1792, please.

These guys needed a decent military, and the Statute of Northhampton was in effect.  "Self defense," outside of military action, was simply not on their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 3:52 AM, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

lf-defense—inside or outside the home.

Umm... Jaime Caetano was HOMELESS when she made the CHOICE to defend HER BODY.

Pooplius wants to homeless to have stun guns, after the Libertarians put them on the streets..Such a problem-solving powerhouse we have here.

Read reason.com.

Share this post


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

How false. Between these two dates, the founders formed a committee, which carefully,  publicly sorted the second amendment, in 1792. They were sharp, and had in mind a force which needed to deal with Napoleons. Go read the MIlitia Act of 1792, please.

These guys needed a decent military, and the Statute of Northhampton was in effect.  "Self defense," outside of military action, was simply not on their minds.

How stupid. Had you read any of the material presented, you'd know that several states wrote self defense into their constitutions at that time. But expecting you to read is like expecting you to know that no English law was "in effect" here after we were no longer a colony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.

After noting the same reasons that the Liberal Gun Club gave for overturning the 2nd Circuit on constitutional grounds, the summary says this:

Quote

IV. The challenged ban also violates the Dormant Commerce Clause and the right to travel. It discrimi-nates against out-of-state commerce on its face, trig-gering this Court’s virtually per se rule of invalidity. And it unconstitutionally forces New York City resi-dents to pick which of two fundamental rights they wish to retain: the right to bear arms or the right to travel. This bizarre, historically anomalous law simply cannot stand.

The Commerce Clause woke up some time ago and while the reference to the Dormant Commerce Clause is quaint, I don't think it applies simply because the DCC applied where Congress has not chosen to act.

But Congress DID act, as the briefs "in support of neither party" all seem to note. They're Thinking and Praying that the court will simply say that the challenged rules violate the Firearms Owners Protection Act. See post 842 for an example. That would avoid the constitutional question and leave lower courts free to continue saying we had indoor militias. I'm Thinking and Praying that SCOTUS can't be that stupid.

Share this post


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

Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.

After noting the same reasons that the Liberal Gun Club gave for overturning the 2nd Circuit on constitutional grounds, the summary says this:

The Commerce Clause woke up some time ago and while the reference to the Dormant Commerce Clause is quaint, I don't think it applies simply because the DCC applied where Congress has not chosen to act.

But Congress DID act, as the briefs "in support of neither party" all seem to note. They're Thinking and Praying that the court will simply say that the challenged rules violate the Firearms Owners Protection Act. See post 842 for an example. That would avoid the constitutional question and leave lower courts free to continue saying we had indoor militias. I'm Thinking and Praying that SCOTUS can't be that stupid.

Hi Tom.  Since you circulated a totally false baseline on Miller vs the USA around here, for years (then failed to retract it), I gotta think that your other presentations are skewed. 

Let's take this post, which is standing on FOPA, another Libertarian manipulation. I suggest that FOPA is suddenly vulnerable, ironically because of the optics of mass shootings.

(Oh, I notice you get out of bed each day to marginalize the horrible mass shootings. This pleases you, it must give you morning joy. Carry on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 1:56 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 6/16/2019 at 6:42 AM, bpm57 said:

Is there any particular reason that you are in love with 9 year old data that shows a decreasing rate, Joe?

You have to go back 7 years to find out. The answer is: if you start with 1999 as a baseline, you can get the desired results.

 

Some of us grow, on Political Anarchy. Some do not.

The desired result" is to know wtf is going on. Based on the figures in Tom's fog  chart, this graph the very picture. The graph only maps the FDLE figures.

 Tom is flat-out claiming the 1999 trough in the pic is "propaganda,"  and needs to retract this IMO. What do you think, DeadEye?

aa FL SYG gun deaths chart.jpg

Share this post


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

Hi Tom.  Since you circulated a totally false baseline on Miller vs the USA around here, for years (then failed to retract it), I gotta think that your other presentations are skewed. 

Who is Eric? And have you read the cases you want to discuss yet?

 

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Let's take this post, which is standing on FOPA, another Libertarian manipulation. I suggest that FOPA is suddenly vulnerable, ironically because of the optics of mass shootings.

Hah! There were too few libertarians to affect much of anything in the 1980's, when the Congress passed and Saint Ronald signed that law.

And you haven't read the briefs on the NY case or you'd know that it's unwise to say that FOPA is vulnerable. It's the only thing that might stop the Supreme Court from getting into the second amendment implications of the NY law, which is why the briefs "in support of neither party" realize that to support NY, they must support the law they hate.

Share this post


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

Who is Eric? And have you read the cases you want to discuss yet?

For years, you have exploited an overnight typo, which was cheerfully corrected, I might add.

 

Dear Anarchists

Dogballs was a lying sack of dog shit all over PA for years, about Miller.

If you read Miller, you chose to mis-represent it. The flaw in Miller, for Robert Levy and McNeely and Larry Pratt,  and for history and constitutional scholars as well, was specifically that it fails to cover "the people".  Presto, here comes the Parker case, which equates to old wimmin in the hood,  with gunz.

Quote

Hah! There were too few libertarians to affect much of anything in the 1980's, when the Congress passed and Saint Ronald signed that law.

And you haven't read the briefs on the NY case or you'd know that it's unwise to say that FOPA is vulnerable. It's the only thing that might stop the Supreme Court from getting into the second amendment implications of the NY law, which is why the briefs "in support of neither party" realize that to support NY, they must support the law they hate.

FOPA is a joke. A deadly joke. A dated joke. A joke on public safety. It would not pass in today's environment. Its days are numbered, same for the PLCAA, same for the remnants of the Tiahart Amendments, same for the Dickey restrictions of federal funds to form and adopt study conclusions. I hope.

And at this point, I get to stand on the pattern in the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 10:11 AM, jocal505 said:

The fabrication is called Parker, and Parker is where this discussion lies, not with Eric or Jack Miller, or Eric or Jack McDonald.

How many years ago was the 7th of last month?

 

Share this post


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

How many years ago was the 7th of last month?

 

You were trolled. You are a silly man, spiritually weightless. Your problem could be the swamp gas, reason.com, or even nannothermite exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.

Quote

As Heller recognized, the right to bear arms is not a right to “carry any weapon whatsoever ... and for whatever purpose.” Id. at 626. English courts had read the medieval Statute of Northampton as “prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’ ” id. at 627—weapons not protected by the right to keep and bear arms, id. at 623-24, 627—or otherwise with evil intent “go[ing] armed to terrify the King’s subjects,” Sir John Knight’s Case, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76 (K.B. 1686). But while some have squinted to see in Northampton and its Yankee analogues a general prohibition on carrying firearms in public, in fact the statute was no more than a rule against “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons” and thereby “terrifying the good people of the land.” 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,COMMENTARIES *148-49. Northampton was not understood as extending to the ordinary carrying of weapons “usually worne and borne,” WILLIAM LAMBARD,EIRENARCHA 135 (1588), unless “accompanied with such [c]ircumstances as are apt to terrify the [p]eople,” 1 HAWKINS,supra, at136; see also 3 JAMES WILSON,THE WORKS OF THE HONOURABLE JAMES WILSON 79 (1804); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 422-23 (1843); Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, 359-60 (1833). Accordingly, Northampton provides zero support for the law challenged here. There is little one can do with a firearm less likely to terrify the good people of the land than to carry it unloaded and locked away in a case.

It's easy to convince hoplophobes that simply owning a gun is terrifying.

Isn't that why you destroyed your assault weapon, Joe?

Share this post


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

 

Isn't that why you destroyed your assault weapon, Joe?

It had to go. First off, because you and Jeffie live up to most gun guy stereotypes.  I would take a lot of teasing to admit the second reason..

 

And sir, I knew it was time to go. I offered to cut it up if you would simply admit the federal ban on federal gun research. True to character or lack thereof,  you did not respond. Then I offered to cut it up if Jeffie would admit to blaming the brothers for most gun violence. He did just that, and I went for an angle grinder. 

It was a deeply emotional decision, overall. The day afterwards, I felt a sense of freedom from certain droning.

 BadLat tipped the scales on my timing. He found himself with the Parkland Blues.

 

 

Share this post


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

Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.

It's easy to convince hoplophobes that simply owning a gun is terrifying.

Tom, the readers of our forums are better informed than your source. Intent was not the key element of the crime.

 

As covered in 2018 on PA, the English law could be summarized this way, and it often covered swords and armor as well:

  • The intent of using a firearm became a felony.
  • Concealing a firearm became a felony.
  • Having a firearm in public places was a misdemeanor.
  • Technically, as it evolved, having a weapon "in the king's spaces" became a misdemeanor.

Secondly, these plaintiffs in the OP may not be satisfied, now or in the future, with a law for a gun in a locked box in a car. Is that really what they are willing to settle for at this point? I don't know.

 

Have you found the FBI gun murder rate in FL yet for 2017? Do you see the problem I am hinting at here? Is no bridge too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. submitted.

The part on the commerce power would have been more persuasive if the NRA brief actually addressed the FOPA. It did not.
 

Quote

 

The panel’s reasons for upholding the transport ban are unpersuasive. It noted that the ban “does not prohibit a premises licensee from patronizing an out-of-state firing range.” Pet.App.31. But that is utterly irrelevant, since the ban does prohibit licensees from bringing their firearms to out-of-state (but not in-the-City) ranges. That firearms “can be rented or borrowed” at out-of-state ranges does not change the analysis, Pet.Appdogballs, since the inability to take one’s own firearm to the practice range is obviously a substantial deterrent to going to an out-of-state range at all. Practicing with a rented gun is a poor substitute for gaining proficiency with one’s own firearm, and that is the firearm that a law-abiding citizen will use should the need for self-defense arise. And as this Court has made clear, a marginal discriminatory burden on interstate commerce is just as unconstitutional as a flat ban. Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 455 (1992).

The Second Circuit also relied on the fact that Petitioners “present no evidence that the purpose of the New York City rule was to serve as a protectionist measure in favor of the City’s firing-range industry.” 38 Pet.App.31. But that is irrelevant too, for “the purpose of, or justification for, a law has no bearing on whether it is facially discriminatory.” Oregon Waste Sys., Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 511 U.S. 93, 100 (1994). After all, “the evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends.” City of Philadelphia, 437 U.S. at 626-27


 

 

They did note that "substantial out of state conduct" is prohibited from within the city.
 

Quote

 

By Ignoring the Alternative Means of Unloaded and Secured Transport, New York Prohibits Substantial Lawful Out-of-State Conduct

1. But for the Transport Ban, New York City Residents Could Carry a Handgun for Lawful Self-Defense in Approximately 38 States Petitioners have identified a series of basic and fundamental activities that the City’s transport ban wrongfully precludes: transport to a second home, practice at a range outside the City, and competition outside the City. Yet, the transport ban actually reaches and burdens an even broader range of otherwise lawful activities, vividly illustrating the City’s failure to engage in proper tailoring and consideration of alternatives, and making it a perfect example of invalid and unconstitutional law making.

...

Some states issue handgun carry permits to qualified non-residents, including Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Virginia, Florida, Utah, and Arizona. (citations omitted) Furthermore, some states recognize handgun carry permits from other states through reciprocity agreements or by unilateral recognition.

...

This means that a person living in New York City can obtain a number of non-resident permits and can be ultimately entitled to carry a handgun for self-defense in at least 38 states. Thus, notwithstanding that a New York City resident will most likely be unable to obtain a license to carry a handgun within 26 the City, that resident could nevertheless obtain multiple non-resident permits from other states. Accordingly, a qualified New York City resident could lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense under the laws of approximately 38 other states—if that resident could get her gun out of the City.

But, of course, this is not actually possible—because the transport ban precludes it. While one can obtain the permits that would authorize carry in all of these other states, the transport ban makes it unlawful to bring one’s gun there in the first place. The transport ban effectively renders the rights that would exist in those 38 other states null and void, including in Connecticut, which is less than a 25 minute car ride from the City.

Thus, by failing to narrowly tailor its law and to consider alternative means to achieve its public safety goals, New York City precludes its residents from enjoying the benefits of handgun carry laws in most other States, effectively nixing those jurisdictions’ policy decisions from within the City’s borders.

 

Oh. Oops. That's racist hate speech from the Liberal Gun Club's brief, not the NRA's. It's easy to confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 5:31 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Makes me wonder why an enlightened place like NY would require an NRA pistol course in the law at issue in this case. Pretty hateful stuff. And divisive. And probably racist. Not that there's proof of any of that, it just must be.

race baiting ^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, The Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee submitted.

Quote

The right to keep and bear arms was recognized in nascent form in the English Bill of Rights, but with three limitations — protecting only firearms “suitable to their conditions,” that the right of self-defense applied only for Protestants, and only “as allowed by law.” See Sources of Our Liberties at 246. The Second Amendment removed those qualifiers, acknowledging that this full right belonged to all the People, and employing the categorical prohibition found in the words “shall not be infringed.”16 This reflected the change from the English tradition where the king had been sovereign, to the American system premised on the sovereignty of the People — and the necessity of preserving an armed citizenry in order to protect that sovereignty. Thus, Heller explained that the English Bill of Rights was only “the predecessor to our Second Amendment” (id. at 593) — but not its source.

NY City has gone the English way, where the "right" people who have enough money and connections get the right but others don't. That's why in practice less than half of one percent of the city's residents can have a handgun at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 7:19 AM, Importunate Tom said:

NYC tries to call the whole thing off.

The reasoning: since they're talking about a proposal that might moot the case, the case is moot.

Nutterz point out the obvious

Quote

Respondents ask this Court to put this case on indefinite hold merely because the New York City Police Department has initiated a rulemaking process involving proposed amendments to §5-23(a) that they maintain, if adopted in their current form after public comment, may moot this case. To state the obvious, a proposed amendment is not law.

And yesterday, the Supreme Court went NUTZ

Quote
Apr 29 2019   Motion of respondents to hold briefing schedule in abeyance DENIED.

NYC has gone from "it might be moot" to "it is moot" but the Court doesn't seem to care.
 

Quote

 

...

In a letter to Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, lawyer Richard Dearing first explained that the city had changed its rules to allow licensed gun owners to transport their guns to, among other places, second homes and shooting ranges outside the city. That regulation will go into effect on July 21. The New York legislature has also passed a law – which has not yet been signed by the state’s governor – that would allow licensed gun owners to transport handguns to another place where they are allowed to have them, Dearing continued, including second homes and shooting ranges.

The case is moot, Dearing argued, because the “new city regulation gives” the challengers “everything they have sought in this lawsuit. The new state law, upon signature by the governor, will make the case doubly moot.” Dearing asked the justices to send the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss it. If the court does not do so, Dearing noted, the city “will file a brief on the designated due date maintaining in greater detail that the case is moot.” The city does not intend, Dearing made clear, to address the merits of the challengers’ claim.

The city’s brief on the merits is currently due on August 5, 2019.

 

A law that hasn't been signed by the Governor is not a law yet.

The City clearly wants to avoid the merits and preserve the 2nd Circuit precedent by ditching the law at issue at the last minute.

I hope it doesn't work, but there's at least one sign it might.

Quote

The justices did not schedule New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the challenge to the city’s ban on transporting a licensed handgun outside city limits, for oral argument. The case was granted in January and is now the oldest case not yet slated for oral argument, but last week the city told the court that the case is moot as a result of changes to both city and state laws.

Except that state law hasn't changed until the Governor signs.

The Supreme Court ruled on a law that had already been changed in the Lopez case. I hope they do it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 1:48 AM, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

 

Oh. Oops. That's racist hate speech from the Liberal Gun Club's brief, not the NRA's. It's easy to confuse the two.

WTF? Race is not mentioned in your quote. Not one bit. It whines about the travel ban on guns in NY, about the guns trapped there.

Share this post


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

The right to keep and bear arms was recognized in nascent form in the English Bill of Rights,

Far from it. Your source is in fact trying to quote Parliament in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.  Your source is contorting the situation, i6t's good enough for the un informed rubes. But here is the backgrounjd.

  • This Parliament, at that time, was confiscating guns in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.
  • The English subjects were issued gunz…. when the Parliament needed their support.
  • But when Parlkiamenjt was skeered of the English subjects, they had their homes searched to collect those guns.
  • The 1689 Bill of Rights therefore, carefully avoided search and seizure protections.
  • Plainly, there was no "nascent right" for gunz in 17th century England.

The Article 7 reference being used? It allowed landed Protestants to form up armed groups to lawfully enforce the laws of the local Dukes, etc.

 

Share this post


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

Your source is in fact trying to quote Parliament in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

So is this one.

Quote

 

In general, the Bill of Rights limited the power of the monarchy, elevated the status of Parliament and outlined specific rights of individuals.

Some of the key liberties and concepts laid out in the articles include:

  • Freedom to elect members of Parliament, without the king or queen’s interference
  • Freedom of speech in Parliament
  • Freedom from royal interference with the law
  • Freedom to petition the king
  • Freedom to bear arms for self-defense
  • Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail
  • Freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without the agreement of Parliament
  • Freedom of fines and forfeitures without a trial
  • Freedom from armies being raised during peacetimes

 

And doing a better job than you, which is no surprise.

Getting back to the case at hand,

Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, The Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee submitted.

The top of the list in the Table of Authorities is the Holy Bible.
 

Quote

 

History is replete with instances of governments which disarm their own people to makethem less able to resist the will of the rulers, includingthe rule of Philistines over ancient Israel,19 Hitler’s reign over Germany,20 and Hugo Chavez’s installed dictatorship over Venezuela.21

19See 1 Samuel 13:19 (“Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears:”).

 

Armed Hebrews? The horror.

But the rest of the brief relies heavily on God as the source of rights so I lost interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So is this one.

Bullshit. You pulled up a flat statement from this source. Now back it up.

Because in the time period of 1689, the Statute of Northampton unequivocally made it misdemeanor to even carry a gun around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 5:53 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Update: the Supreme Court officially doesn't care.

Quote

[UPDATE: The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association responded to the city’s letter, calling it “both premature and procedurally improper.” On July 8, the Supreme Court’s electronic docket indicated that the letter had not been accepted for filing.] 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 10:03 AM, jocal505 said:

Because in the time period of 1689, the Statute of Northampton unequivocally made it misdemeanor to even carry a gun around.

I only see "arms" mentioned, Joe, which covers much more then guns. Maybe you should read it again, perhaps look into why it was enacted in the first place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 5:57 AM, Importunate Tom said:
 

Brief amicus curiae of National African American Gun Association, Inc. filed.

 

Quote

 

D.The Rule is Heir to Restrictive Licensing in the Jim Crow and Anti-Immigrant Eras

The ban on taking a licensed handgun out of one’s house is but one of an array of City restrictions that discourage firearm ownership, particularly among the poor and minorities. While only the transport provision is at issue here, historically such restrictions have functioned to repress exercise of Second Amendment rights.The Fourteenth Amendment did away with actually naming African Americans in laws prohibiting the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, in the Jim Crow era facially-neutral laws imposed prohibitive fees and restrictions on the poor and were selectively enforced in ways to deny the right of black citizens to possess and carry arms.12 Moreover, New York’s licensing law originated in Anti-Immigrant motives.The following examples from enactments in Florida, Virginia, and New York demonstrate such goals.

...

New York’s restrictive licensing for “premises” and “carry” permitsoriginated with the Sullivan Act of 1911, in an era of mistrust against Italians and other immigrants. See Don B. Kates, Restricting Handguns 17 (1979); L. Kennett & J. Anderson, The Gun in America 177-78 (1975).

The first person sentenced under the Sullivan Act was a working man named Marino Rossi, who carried a revolver because he was in fear for his life from the Black Hand criminal gang. Sentencing him to one year in Sing Sing, the judge noted the custom of “your countrymen to carry guns,” adding: “It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country.” New York Times, Sept. 28, 1911.14

The Times praised the one-year sentence of Rossi, whose “hot-headed countrymen” carried concealed weapons, adding: “The Judge’s warning to the Italian community was timely and exemplary.” Id.,Sept. 29, 1911.15

The law was also designed to dissuade poor persons from obtaining permits, as it continues to do today. Another defendant was a night watchman who worked late in a dangerous area and who “did not feel that he could spare $10 of his small wages to carry a $5 revolver.” Id., Sept. 28, 1911.

 

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I hear Jim Crow.


Glad to know you're doing some reading!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:


Glad to know you're doing some reading!

I read your blogs, and you have an eerie way of slipping regularly into Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, MLK (quite out of his context)  the NAACP, the SCLC featuring Rev. Mosteller, Judge Taney and Dred Scott 45 times if counted together, Bloomberg throwing blacks against the wall endlessly, not to mention  myself as a racist, even more endlessly. Yo, you played worked several Dylann Roof angles.

What is up with you? What is this, if not Jim Crow/dogballs?

Share this post


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

See Don B. Kates, Restricting Handguns

I call bullshit on Tom's source. Mr. Kates is DTS now, but claimed to have been a freedom rider back in the day. Yet NONE of his writing touches on or grasps or comes near the core of the problem. His gun monbotone lacks the hallmark of a Julian Bond, or even of Rev, Al.  I have searched for mature insight from Kates (to inspire Tom), but DK comes across like NGS, at least to me.

He only writes gun stuff, for CATO. He is one of about seven key writers within The Standard Model. All seven are Libertarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 10:03 AM, jocal505 said:

Bullshit. You pulled up a flat statement from this source. Now back it up.

What, you don't agree with history.com? Maybe you could read to the bottom of the page and send in a complaint.

Share this post


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

I read your blogs, and you have an eerie way of slipping regularly into Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, MLK (quite out of his context)  the NAACP, the SCLC featuring Rev. Mosteller, Judge Taney and Dred Scott 45 times if counted together, Bloomberg throwing blacks against the wall endlessly, not to mention  myself as a racist, even more endlessly. Yo, you played worked several (some murderer) angles.

What is up with you? What is this, if not Jim Crow/dogballs?

On 7/14/2019 at 3:11 AM, jocal505 said:

And Tom is a Jim Crow redneck all over PA,

Actually, the amicus brief that approvingly cites Jim Crow era laws as useful precedents showing reasonable gun control in action is this one:

 

Amicus brief of Brady and Team ENOUGH submitted.

And no, I'm not really a fan of their analysis nor the racist laws they want to lean on now that it's convenient for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 7:34 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Fellow Favre fans, it seems...

Quote

 

This Court declared that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right” to be “singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment.” McDon-ald, 561 U.S. at 778–79, 780. Yet several courts have boldly admitted doing so.

The Second Circuit acknowledged that “analogies between the First and Second Amendment were made often in Heller” and that “similar analogies have been made since the Founding.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 92. Nevertheless, the court refused to “assume that the principles and doctrines developed in connection with the First Amendment apply equally to the Second,” because “that approach . . . could well result in the erosion of hard-won First Amendment rights.” Id. In other words, if the First and Second Amendments were treated equally, courts would undermine the First in order to avoid enforcing the Second.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. submitted.

The final footnote:
 

Quote

 

See McDonald at 813–50 (Thomas, J., concurring) (locating the right to arms in the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause). In McDonald, the plurality did not dispute Justice Thomas’s findings that the original meaning of “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” includes an individual right of the same scope as that protected by the Second Amendment. Id. at 758. Indeed, the Reconstruction Era highlighted the pressing need for a federal guarantee of such a right from state laws disarming freedmen, leaving them defenseless in the face of such terrorist organizations as the Ku Klux Klan, from whom southern state governments were un-able or unwilling to protect them.

Accordingly, whether the right is viewed as protected by the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause or by modern substantive due process doctrine makes little difference in its application. As both Heller and McDonald showed, the right was always understood as protecting all lawful purposes, including personal and community defense.

 

Heh. Scalia told Alan Gura to siddown and shaddup when he started heading toward the Privileges and Immunities swamp.

A very conservative reaction, since those words in the 14th amendment have been meaningless for a very long time. But not an originalist approach, something for which Scalia was otherwise known, since the words really are there and really do mean something.

Share this post


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

Amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. submitted.

The final footnote:
 

Heh. Scalia told Alan Gura to siddown and shaddup when he started heading toward the Privileges and Immunities swamp.

A very conservative reaction, since those words in the 14th amendment have been meaningless for a very long time. But not an originalist approach, something for which Scalia was otherwise known, since the words really are there and really do mean something.

According to Adam Winkler, Scalia walked Gura through Heller on a leash, just like the Libertarian poodle he was.

Whatever became of this legal powerhouse named Alan Gura?

Share this post


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

According to Adam Winkler, Scalia walked Gura through Heller on a leash, just like the Libertarian poodle he was.

Whatever became of this legal powerhouse named Alan Gura?

As readers of the cases you like to discuss without reading know, the 14th amendment had nothing at all to do with the Heller case and was relevant in the case of Eric McDonald. Or Otis. Or possibly Jack. One of those anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 12:45 PM, bpm57 said:

What, you don't agree with history.com? Maybe you could read to the bottom of the page and send in a complaint.

"Nascent gun rights" in England, in the 1600's? There's no way.

 

This source is A&E, and they appear to be presenting urban myth. What this source claims has been intelligently discussed in our threads.

You had your chance to challenge the details, and you are DeadEye Dick..

No man jack among us could dispute the work of Lois Schwoerer and Patrick. J. Charles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Repastinate Tom said:

As readers of the cases you like to discuss without reading know, the 14th amendment had nothing at all to do with the Heller case and was relevant in the case of Eric McDonald. Or Otis. Or possibly Jack. One of those anyway.

Ah, Tom is here. The guy who claimed loudly and repeatedly that that the Miller case deals with gun rights for "the people."

Share this post


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

Amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. submitted.

The final footnote:
 

Heh. Scalia told Alan Gura to siddown and shaddup when he started heading toward the Privileges and Immunities swamp.

A very conservative reaction, since those words in the 14th amendment have been meaningless for a very long time. But not an originalist approach, something for which Scalia was otherwise known, since the words really are there and really do mean something.

Did anyone join in Thomas’ concurring opinion?

Share this post


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

"Nascent gun rights" in England, in the 1600's? There's no way.

I realize that you have serious reading comprehension issues, Joe, but it still only says "arms" - which - again - covers more then firearms.

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

This source is A&E, and they appear to be presenting urban myth.

"myth" because you can't read english. Did you send in a complaint about the page?

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

o man jack among us could dispute the work of Lois Schwoerer and Patrick. J. Charles.

Who wrote this, Joe?

"THE defense of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defense of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray.4 For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Did anyone join in Thomas’ concurring opinion?

No, the only other fan of Privileges and Immunities on the Big Bench seems to be Gorsuch, who had not yet arrived.

Do you think those words in the 14th should remain meaningless for all time?

Share this post


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

  I realize that you have serious reading comprehension issues, Joe, but it still only says "arms" - which - again - covers more then firearms.

"myth" because you can't read english. Did you send in a complaint about the page?

Who wrote this, Joe?

"THE defense of one’s self, or the mutual and reciprocal defense of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray.4 For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another."

You have the keen DeadEye comprehension thing going on. So use it...do I do guessing games?

It lies upon you to present your source. It lies upon us to ascertain the quality of it. Proceed. 

Share this post


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

"myth" because you can't read english.

"Myth" because certain Libertarian writers are superimposing today's values upon the founding fathers. My source is William Blackstone. Who is yours?

 

Tom's source in this Amucus Curia presentation includes at least four key Libertarians, including Joyce Malcolm. They form the core of The Standard Model writing.

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

1  Amici professors are law professors who teach and write on the Second Amendment:

Randy Barnett (Georgetown),*

Royce Barondes (Missouri),

Robert Cottrol (George Washington),*

Nicholas Johnson (Fordham),

Joyce Malcolm (George Mason),*

George Mocsary (Southern Illinois),

Michael O’Shea (Oklahoma City),

Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee),* and

Gregory Wallace (Campbell).

                                     *asterisk indicates the closed loop of  "Standard Model" authorship

 

As described in the Appendix, the above professors were cited extensively by this Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Oft-cited by lower courts as well

 

As our gun mayhem has unfolded, Ms. Malcolm, Randy Barnett, and their cadre have become disgraced historians.  I have presented the real historians who gathered, in a McDonald brief, to challenge the Standard Model authors together. Seventeen had PhD's, and three of those were English subjects.

 

Joyce Malcolm is so iffy that dogballs will not accept or reject her.  If he accepts her work, it is full of holes. If he stands on real history and rejects her, the historical basis for gun mayhem is gone.  LMFAO.

 

I only hope that Incontinent Tom Kelo Tom has better authority in other areas. I'll never know, why would I read other garbage?

Share this post


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

You have the keen DeadEye comprehension thing going on. So use it...do I do guessing games?

It lies upon you to present your source. It lies upon us to ascertain the quality of it. Proceed. 

I'm shocked that you don't recognize Blackstone's work, Joe. It is almost like you are still unwilling to read sources beyond those your favorite lawyer quotes.

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

My source is William Blackstone.

Maybe you should read more of his work.

 

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Seventeen had PhD's, and three of those were English subjects.

 

And yet your go-to source is a lawyer without a phd in history. Go figure. Doctorates are critical, except in the case of your favorite author.

 

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If he stands on real history

And by "real history", you mean responses to court filings that get published in Salon, right?

Or do you  mean law journal articles from 10 years ago that only the 9th circuit seems to read?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 7:05 AM, bpm57 said:
On 7/22/2019 at 6:23 PM, jocal505 said:

Seventeen had PhD's, and three of those were English subjects.

 

And yet your go-to source is a lawyer without a phd in history. Go figure. Doctorates are critical, except in the case of your favorite author.

The cream rises to the top. We find that the seventeen PhD's are quoting two mere journeymen, extensively. You gotta love that.

The PhD's placed Lois Schwoerer's name first among the group in their McDonald brief. 

Patrick J. Charles trashed Joyce Lee Malcolm, and in a classy way. His MO is to provide the Libertarian's best chapter and text, then to add the context. 

Hi, bpm.

  • Peruta 1 was an example of what happens when bogus history us accepted. (Scott Peruta got a must issue and a CC gun in San Diego,)
  • Peruta II is an example of what happens when justices comprehend Patrick J. Charles.  (Peruta was denied both CC and OC, in San Diego.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2019 at 10:46 AM, phillysailor said:

Minorities and the poor ARE the people. 


I couldn't agree more. Of course, I had to drag that here from another thread.

In the context of charging people hundreds of dollars to (maybe) get permission to exercise their rights, as NY and NJ do, that's just not something most will say here on PA.

Because the only race that's really important is the one between TeamR and TeamD and TeamD has that nasty taboo against saying anything bad about a gun control policy or advocate.

Make voting or abortion cost hundreds more dollars and the same people are outraged at the disproportionate effect on poor people, especially minorities. They have rights! But there's that TeamD second amendment exception to vaunted principles in action...

Share this post


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

But there's that TeamD second amendment exception to vaunted principles in action...

The Second is all about gunz and violence, eh? > It sits on a shelf of it's own, to the non de-sensitized among us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC is still trying to worm their way out of addressing their law in front of SCOTUS.

Quote

Glad to see their attempted shenanigans denied. Looks like they will have to defend the law on its scant merits by Monday, August 5 after all.

From the petitioners response above:

Quote

This Court should reject respondents’ latest request.  As petitioners will explain more fully in  their  response  to  respondents’  Suggestion,  petitioners  certainly  do  not  agree  that  this  case  is  moot or should be removed from the Court’s calendar.  That contested issue can and will be briefed separately from the merits and provides no excuse for delaying the merits briefing.  The mootness issues can and should be considered by the Court in the ordinary course, whether that is when the Court  returns  from  recess  or  alongside  the  merits  briefing  and  argument.    In  the  meantime,  respondents  have  had  more  than  enough  time  to  prepare  their  defense  of  the  challenged  provisions—provisions  that  they  have  successfully  defended  in  both  the  district  court  and  the  Second Circuit and continue to insist are constitutional.  There is no reason to give them even more time,  or  for  this  Court  to  rush  its  consideration  of  their  mootness  arguments,  simply  because  respondents  apparently  would  prefer  not  to  defend  in  this  Court  a  regime  that  they  imposed  on  petitioners and other New York residents for more than a decade.

 

 

 

   
   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites