Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

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

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

What a load of crap. NYC and NY State changed their laws in a hurry in response to the Supreme Court's agreement to hear this case.

FALSE

The legislation was pending, and was well along in the committee phase, when an atrocity happened. Note: The special acceleration of the application was often used in dog food laws, transportation laws, port barrel deals, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 1:41 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

What does the phrase "a right to bear arms for their defence" mean to you anyway?

On an international level, both "bear arms" and "defence" meant national militia', in the writing of the day. Over and over.

On a personal level, it meant get your weapon of choice to the living area and hunker down for a bit.

 

England also tried Machiavelli's ragtrag militia ideas for national defense in the 1790's... but Napoleon went on the march a few years later...
England soon produced a real military, and the rest is English History...with well-regulated gunz..

According to the vetted-type English historians, they were developing a society (then and now) where guns were not needed in daily life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
25 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

What a load of crap. NYC and NY State changed their laws in a hurry in response to the Supreme Court's agreement to hear this case.

FALSE

No, it's true, as readers know. NYC said so in April.
 

Quote

 

Two legal developments have occasioned a reexamination of the balance struck by the Rule. The first is the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Osterweil v. Bartlett, 21 N.Y.3d 580 (2013), which held that the New York Penal Law permits the owner of a part-time residence in the state to apply for a handgun license in the jurisdiction of that residence, although the owner may be domiciled outside the state. Prior to the decision, the statute had been interpreted to require the applicant for a handgun permit to show that he or she was a domiciliary of the county (or city) where the application was filed. See, e.g., Matter of Mahoney v Lewis, 199 A.D.2d 734, 735 (3d Dep’t 1993). Following the Osterweil decision, a New York City resident who owns a second home elsewhere in the state may apparently apply to the licensing officer in that jurisdiction for a license to possess a handgun at the second home. The Rule, however, does not currently authorize a premises licensee to transport a handgun listed on a New York City premises license to another premises where the licensee resides and is authorized to possess a handgun.

The second development is the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York lawsuit, which challenges the Rule’s transport authorizations on Second Amendment and other constitutional grounds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going freestyle?

You were making wild allegations again, about rushed midnight legislation in NY...which the SC fully supported later on.

That was a bad day for AW's, eh?

So you mis-represented the decision. It became spam about a seven-round ammo victory ffs.

 

The SAFE Act is part of an 80% reduction in violence in NYC.

So remarkable. So comprehensive. So CATO-free in Syracuse, I have heard.

 

Where did you go from there, after being called out for your wild claimz? 

You just pulled up other unrelated stuff up, from your database, which you don't have.

 

Share this post


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

which the SC fully supported later on.

What case was that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 8/7/2019 at 6:03 AM, jocal505 said:

which the SC fully supported later on.

What case was that?

He thinks that if the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, it means they agree with him.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 5:47 AM, jocal505 said:
On 8/6/2019 at 4:41 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

What does the phrase "a right to bear arms for their defence" mean to you anyway?

On an international level, both "bear arms" and "defence" meant national militia', in the writing of the day. Over and over.

On a personal level, it meant get your weapon of choice to the living area and hunker down for a bit.

 

On 8/4/2019 at 8:06 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Pennsylvania's constitution said:

Quote

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

The part about defending the state was militia related. The part about personal defense was about personal defense. Your wishful thinking that it meant "in the home only" has never been true, as the Beard and Dred Scott cases, among others, have shown over and over.

Share this post


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

Your wishful thinking that it meant "in the home only" has never been true, as the Beard and Dred Scott cases, among others, have shown over and over.

FALSE FALSE FALSE. Can you not be a true fellow?

The unbroken timeline of the Statute of Northamption spans from 1285  until about the time of Dred Scott. After that, it applied in England but not the USA so much. The USA took a violent flyer around the time of Jim Crow, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC continues to bang that mootness drum

Quote
Quote

Nor does the voluntary cessation doctrine prevent mootness here . The City has no desire to reinstate its former rule . But, in any event, state law unequivocally precludes that from happening .

Uh huh. The regulatory scheme that they defended all the way through the appeals court as reasonable and necessary is now, suddenly, undesirable and they won't return to it.

What a load of crap. The law was changed only to moot this case and I have little doubt that the city and state would change them right back to what they very recently thought was reasonable and necessary once the need to defend it in front of SCOTUS disappeared.

There's also this:

Quote

Petitioners’ purported confusion regarding the requirement in the City’s rule that a shooting range be “lawful” (see Opp . 14) is easily dispelled . The word’s plain meaning is well captured by the state statute’s alternative phrasing: a lawful range is one “that is authorized by law to operate as such .” N .Y . Penal Law § 400 .00(6)(ii)

A completely unsurprising answer and exactly the kind of answer I was referencing in this post:

On 2/19/2018 at 5:08 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

The law DiFi proposed says this:

Quote

 

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or established range if—

 ‘‘(A) the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range; and

                                                        
 ‘‘(B) the transferee is not known to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

 

Like every background check law, it doesn't just cover sales. It covers transfers. And some transfers are exempt from the background check requirement.

Like handing a gun to someone at a range.

But what kind of range? Well, she says, "a licensed target facility or established range."

My back yard isn't a licensed target facility but might be an established range. If you start digging in an area and find lots of shell casings, does that area then qualify as an "established range" for purposes of background check exemption?


The City's brief makes clear that the answer to my question at the end is what I suspected it would be: "established" means "established by government action, not historic use."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, a slew of new amicus briefs.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/

Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of March for Our Lives Action Fund submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Constitutional Law Professors submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of National Education Association submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Americans Against Gun Violence submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse et al. submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Public Health Researchers and Social Scientists submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Everytown for Gun Safety submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Motion to participate in oral argument of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of 139 Members of the United States House of Representatives submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Citizens Crime Commission of New York City submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of Federal Courts Scholars submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WILLIAM J. BRATTON submitted.
Aug 12 2019 Amicus brief of States of New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia and the District of Columbia submitted.

But dinner is ready so I'll look at them later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bpm57 said:
7 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

"That sure is a nice court you have there, it would be a shame if something... happened to it."

Heh. Pretty much. Those same Senators would probably see the problem here if a state like Alabama came to the brink of having to defend their abortion laws then suddenly changed them (with a not-too-believable promise that they'd NEVER change them back) in an effort to moot the case.

Quote

“It can be tempting for judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the requirements of the law,” id.at 2612, to legislate from the bench.To stave off that temptation, justiciability doctrines like standing and mootness function as an “apolitical limitation on judicial power,” ensuring that courts do not exceed their constitutionally prescribed powers.

Hmm... so when SCOTUS heard the case of noted criminal Jack Miller, they must have thought he had standing as part of "the people" since there's no evidence he was ever actively involved in a militia.

I found this pretty funny:

Quote

(“[Y]ou cannot simply, because you have the votes, begin to change rules, to change precedent.”), with Gamble v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 1960(2019) (Thomas, J., concurring)(“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.”). In fact, in 55 percent of the 73 cases, the 5-4 majority disregarded principles of stare decisis, judicial restraint, originalism, textualism, or limitationson appellate fact-finding.

Their rant about some 5-4 decisions they view as partisan has Gamble as an example? The same Gamble in which I observed that

On 6/19/2019 at 8:12 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

and that

On 6/20/2019 at 6:46 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Justice Thomas wrote a separate concurrence, notably joined by no one, in which he went on a rant about starry-eyed decisis.

Basically, "we've always done it this way" isn't a good enough answer to "this is wrong" in his view.


And now these Senators are suddenly on Thomas' side of that issue? Hah!

Also amusing:

Quote

The Court and the country have witnessed an accompanying explosion of strategic “faux” litigation—cases fabricated to bring issues before the Court when litigants presume it will give them policy victories. For example, we have seen flocks of“freedom-based public interest law” organizations that exist only to change public policy through litigation, and which often do not disclose their funders.

Changing public policy by filing civil rights lawsuits is first amendment protected activity for corporations. SCOTUS said so in NAACP vs Button.

In NAACP v Alabama, SCOTUS recognized that disclosing NAACP membership could be extremely hazardous to your health in 1950's Alabama.

These same Senators would see the problem with overturning those precedents, but for the TeamD tendency to abandon all principles when the second amendment comes up.

Quote

We have seen behavioral signals, like litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as quickly as practicable and without argument, so that [they] can expeditiously take their claims to the Supreme Court” (ordinarily, in litigation, litigants seek to win).

Uh huh. And that's not what happened in this case at all.

Quote

Almost invariably, and as we have seen in this case, such plaintiffs are accompanied by throngs of professional amici, whose common funding sources and connections to the organizations behind the supposed party-in-interest are obscured by ineffective disclosure rules.

Except that NYSRPA did not "rush to lose" this case. The search for politically motivated funding ends for TeamD as soon as Bloomberg'$ habit of out$peaking the NRA is brought up, another example of the TeamD tendency to abandon all principles when the second amendment comes up.

Quote

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

I at least agree with the part about gungrabbiness being an urgent concern. Demonstrations of this fact appear here daily, as I comment on a range of issues and receive responses on one issue. The urgent one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Hmm... so when SCOTUS heard the case of noted criminal Jack Miller, they must have thought he had standing as part of "the people" since there's no evidence he was ever actively involved in a militia.

  1. Did they consider Mrs. Miller? She is the people, Shirley.
  2. Why speculate, when I can quote Tom Ray on four threads, using language straight from the decision.

The dogballs schooled me about this in 2014, in four places. Hint. Was Miller a male, capable of the common defense?


Why the hell do you not quote the infamous CATO operation, proudly, where one Ms. Parker, a female, was accepted in the SC as "the people".  Scalia guided the case along. Robert Levy, "The Chair" down at CATO, sat at the lead counsel table. Henry Winkler looked on, calculating the appropriate scrutiny...

 

Then CATO gave us old wimmin people in the hood, with gunz. Go CATO.

But the mission was to get "the people's" fabricated gun rights to leach and percolate...right into the Heller and McDonald cases.

Viola. Gun rights for the people, in spite of the Miller case's limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

The amicus brief of gungrabby states asks the court to believe that Cuomo's government acted to relax gun control at the state level for some reason other than this case.

Quote

Moreover, no exception to mootness applies. The voluntary cessation doctrine invoked by petitioners does not apply here because the State’s new law preempted the City’s former ban before the City voluntarily replaced it. And there is no reasonable likelihood that the City will reinstate the former ban; even if the City wished to do so, any attempt would be preempted by state law. Petitioners misunderstand the relationship between states and municipalities when claiming that the City “procured” the State’s new law. Cities are creatures of their State, and their State controls them—not the other way around.

Uh huh. And the political relationship between the state and the city is that the state will do what the city needs done to preserve the power to regulate guns. And that's what the state did, and what the state can and likely would undo the moment SCOTUS called this case moot.

Quote

Here, for example, the City showed a substantial relationship between its rule and the singular public-safety concerns presented by the movement of fire-arms through the nation’s by-far largest, densest, and most urbanized major city—one with a unique concen-tration of schools, government buildings, places of worship, and the like.

Well, no, the City has withheld data they possess on how the few people who are wealthy and politically connected enough to own guns have actually behaved and they presented the opinion of one gungrabby cop that these overwhelmingly peaceful people would engage in road rage shootouts if allowed to transport unloaded guns in locked containers to some unauthorized location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aug 12 2019     Amicus brief of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
Aug 12 2019     Motion to participate in oral argument of Neal Goldfarb submitted.

Being a fan of unintentional humor, I hope Mr. Goldfarb is offered the opportunity to get up in front of SCOTUS and say stuff like this:

Quote

The Court also cited a law review article that it des-cribed as “identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of ‘bear arms’ from the founding period.” That article provided quotations from documents dating from before the Constitution was ratified, but6 of those did not use bear arms at all; instead they provided uses of bear in which the direct object was a word other than arms, such as long-bow, sword, weapons, gun, poynard, whingar, and durk.

So the BIG ERROR in Heller was that the court somehow acted like "bear arms" is in any way similar to "bear weapons" when clearly one has almost four more letters so is very, very different.

Share this post


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

if allowed to transport unloaded guns in locked containers to some unauthorized location.

This is an assumption, a safety okay, a thumbs-up, of this condition, coming from dogballs.

He sees how road rage would be minimized, effectively,  by NY's proiposal.

Dogballs would accept " unloaded guns in locked containers", to prevent road rage.

Whew,  the guns will not be trapped in the hithers of NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

This brief seems mostly unrelated to NYC's laws. It consists mostly of fearmongering and performing the usual tricks to magnify the terrible danger of gun ownership, much like when Trump supporters point to an illegal immigrant who commits crimes in order to disparage immigrants generally. There are stories of the rare but convenient victims to whom posters here like to pay so much attention for gungrabby purposes.

They did, perhaps inadvertently, touch on a bit of truth with this story.
 

Quote

 

H.Trevon Bosley

Trevon Bosley is a bright young man studying elec-trical engineering at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Next, he plans to attend graduate school to become a biomedical engineer. Despite his talents, Trevon never imagined these opportunities for himself. He grew up on the South Side of Chicago where rampant gun violence taught him early on to temper expectations for his future. “I learned not to plan too far ahead. So many people around you are killed that you believe it’s likely you won’t make it, so you don’t form aspirations.”

Trevon was aware of Chicago’s gun violence at a young age. As a six-year-old, he learned that his teenage cousin had been shot and killed sitting in his car. Although too young to process it, Trevon re-members always feeling unsafe in his community—so much so that he strategically charted his path to and from elementary school, block by block, to avoid gang territories.  He estimates  that  three out  of  five people  in  his  community  own  a  gun.    “If  you  think the  people  over  there  have  guns,  you  have  to  carry one  as  well.    You  can’t  be  the  only  one  around  not prepared.”  Some are obtained legally, and others are sold  on  the  black  market  by  second-hand  dealers, sometimes out of the trunks of their cars.

 

60% of people own guns in Chicago?

If true, almost all have to be illegal. Legal gun ownership rates are estimated to be much lower in that bastion of gun control.

Why are communities like Chicago plagued with an endless stream of shootings related to gangs? The same reason as a century ago except the prohibition failure this time involves drugs other than alcohol. The violent alcohol gangs don't dominate their territories any more, but, as Trevon Bosley rightly observed, violent drug dealing gangs do. We should be UNDOING SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

In which they take on the Liberal Gun Club and many others who say stuff like this:

Quote

Liberal Gun Club Br. at 4 (Courts of Appeals approach “incompatible with any in-dividual right the Constitution protects”);

Needless to say, I'm in agreement with the Liberals.
 

Quote

 

Strict scrutiny is not a universal feature of funda-mental rights. Instead, this Court has subjected gov-ernmental conduct to strict scrutiny only when it im-plicates a limited set of rights—those found in the First Amendment’s Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Free Association Clauses, and in the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection—and, even then, it has done so only in limited cases.4

Thus, the Court has applied a more relaxed stand-ard of review in a number of cases involving these same rights. “Gradations of scrutiny” apply to the re-view of the First Amendment right to free speech, de-pending on the speaker, the type of speech, and the type of regulation.

 

I suspect they'd see the problem if those "gradations" never included strict scrutiny with respect to the first amendment.

Instead they see courts of appeal faithfully interpreting Heller and arriving at the conclusion that we had indoor militias. They're faithful all right: to TeamD grabbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

the conclusion that we had indoor militias.

No. You are mis-represdenting this with a jingo (and even stating the conclusion backwards). dogballs.

No other fundamental right faces strict scrutiny, just because. Why should the Second be treated that way? Here are the words you deny

Quote

CONCLUSION

There is no substance to the argument that the Second Amendment is systematically receiving “second-class” treatment, and, indeed, an analysis of the doctrine the Courts of Appeals have applied, and of the results of Second Amendment cases, tends to show the opposite. Review of the supposedly hostile cases Petitioners and their amici cite as anecdotal proof, meanwhile, demonstrates an effort to adhere to this Court’s instructions and to develop the doctrine in the way the Court instructed in Heller and McDonald.

There is, in short, neither occasion nor justification for the Court to codify an unvarying standard of strict review for the Second Amendment. No such standard governs any other fundamental right.

And the Courts of Appeals should continue to develop the doctrine as they have, case by case, in the way Heller envisioned. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

This one seems to belong back in the merits briefs and only touches on the current mootness issue in a footnote.

At least I can agree with one thing about which the Teacher'$ Union $peak$:

Quote

In contrast, the individual’s interest in armed self-defense may be higher in rural areas, where po-lice response times are likely to be longer. Additional-ly, the individual’s interest in possessing guns for other lawful purposes, such as recreation and hunting, is likely to be much higher in rural areas. “Rural residents should not have to weigh their desire to own hunting rifles against the possibility that urban youth will use handguns to shoot each other. And advocates of urban gun control should not have to denigrate the cultural salience of hunting in Montana when their goal is to limit cheap pistols in Manhattan.”

The thing is, rural residents' right to own guns is already being weighed against "mass" shootings that seem to those of us who actually examine them to be largely an urban/drug war phenomenon.

Cheap pistols in Manhattan? Where a few wealthy and politically connected people can afford them and gain permission to own them? They've already done a pretty good job of ensuring that only wealthy people can really exercise their second amendment rights with the hundreds in fees that are required.

The surprising aspects of this brief are that the NEA $peak$ so fondly of deference to legislatures, especially at the state and local level. Didn't know they were such Bork fans, or fans of states' rights.

They seem to be in a PANIC over the idea that the presumption of lawfulness when a legislature passes gun laws will be discarded if a constitutional challenge is possible. It won't. The thing is, that presumption can be overcome on all kinds of issues. So, for example, when Alabama passes nutty abortion rules, those are presumptively lawful, but that presumption can be overcome in a constitutional challenge.

Quote

Accepting Petitioners’ argument could also jeopardize beneficial laws that limit the age at which cer-tain firearms can be lawfully purchased. “Despite the research that suggests most active shooters are school-aged and have a connection to the school and data that show that 18 to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at a rate four times higher than adults 21 and older, few states have stepped in to close gaps that allow minors to legally purchase high-powered firearms.”

We should probably DO SOMETHING about those 18 to 21 year old minors doing things like voting, signing contracts, going to war, etc. They're just kids! We can't have kids determining our political leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

I only got to page 11 and have some boating in mind before it gets too hot but this is some funny stuff.

Their overall point is that the Heller decision should be reversed. On pages 10 and 11 they cite Kennedy and Roberts in Citizens United as examples of when overruling a precedent is warranted.

That's good comedy right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comedy continues...

Quote

There is substantial scholarly support for the argument that the “individual rights” view articulated in Heller . . . was largely an invented historical tradition. Gun rights advocates both within and outside of the legal academy worked assiduously to create this revisionist history of the Second Amendment and deployed it effectively in Heller. . . For most of the last century the dominant interpretation of the Second Amendment was as a collective right, not an individual right.

And then noted constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe did a little reading and reversed his conclusion.

And then this happened...

 

Quote

 

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

They spent pages decrying the 5-4 split and then denounced... the dissenters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

 

Quote

The harms of interpersonal gun violence are disproportionately felt in cities and by communities of color. Roughly half of all gun homicides in America take place in just 127 cities. Aliza Aufrichtig et al., Want to Fix Gun Violence in America? Go Local, Guardian, Jan. 9, 2017. Within cities, violence is clustered among racially segregated, economically disenfranchised neighborhoods. In Boston, 53% of the city’s gun violence occurred in less than three percent of the city’s intersections and streets. Anthony A. Braga et al., The Concentration and Stability of Gun Violence at Micro Places in Boston, 1980–2008, 26 J. Quantitative Criminology 33, 47 (2010). Gun violence patterns mean there are racial disparities in victimization: black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to die by gun homicide.

I haven't checked in on the Gungrabby Archive in a few days but just did and sure enough, the most recent mass shooting was in Chicago. Again. And looks like the stupid drug war. Again.

Glad to see the Social Scientists speaking an inconvenient truth. Here's another: that will continue whether or not we ban and try to confiscate squirrel guns owned by rural people.

Quote

In sum, social science research finds that firearm licensing laws are an effective means of enforcing “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of fire-arms” by criminal wrongdoers

In sum, Chicago's drug gangs continue to frequently demonstrate that they are armed and dangerous, despite licensing.

Quote

State-level universal background check laws, which, like licensing laws, are used to enforce “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626, prevent guns from being diverted to the illegal gun market. Research suggests that states without universal background check laws export crime guns across state lines at a nearly 30% higher rate than states that require back-ground checks on all gun sales.

Research suggests you can't have an exporter without also having an importer. But illegal importers in gungrabby states are inconvenient and not researched all that well.

Quote

Laws imposing additional prohibitions on pos-session of firearms by dangerous individuals—including those that require firearm relinquishment by domestic abusers and restrict firearms during emergency domestic violence restraining orders—are associated with a 16% reduction in intimate partner homicides with firearms and a 12–13% reduction in total intimate partner homicide.

Two of the few areas where I agree with these researchers. Targeting dangerous people makes sense. Targeting gun owners because TeamD doesn't.

Quote

Laws setting a minimum age for handgun purchase of 21 years, which limit gun access by minors who are not yet the “responsible” citizens who enjoy core Second Amendment rights under Heller (see, e.g., id. at 635), are associated with a 9% reduction in rates of firearm suicides among youth voters aged 18 through 20.

Offered with a slight correction, just in case it might make someone think about whether 18-20 year olds should be allowed to vote. The pen is mightier than the sword and the mightiest of all is the pen marking a ballot. Can we really trust these (youths, voters) with such awesome responsbility?

Quote

Policymakers are also presented with hard questions when firearm technology creates new dangers, like untraceable firearms created with 3D printers, or deadly modern hardware employed by mass shooters, including silencers, bump stocks, and 40-, 50- or 100-round ammunition magazines. Some of these public health threats have outpaced empirical research on the effectiveness of laws regulating them, making it essential for lawmakers to be given leeway to consider reasoned predictions of experts based on similar gun policies and broader public health evidence.

Uh huh. 3D printed guns are still barely a thing. Most mass shooters have used handguns. Without "silencers," which are already heavily regulated. Without bump stocka, which Trump passed legislation to ban using his Unitary Executive authority to be a legislator. And despite all the talk of 100 round magazines, TeamD bans and confiscation programs target magazines holding 5 rounds, 7 rounds, or 10 rounds as "high" capacity. Those, and 100 round magazines, are not new things.

Quote

On a local level, adopting Petitioners’ approach would directly jeopardize the immense progress that New York City has made toward reducing gun deaths and keeping its residents safe.

I was hoping this would lead into discussion of how the challenged laws that required the few people who are rich and politically-connected enough to own guns in NYC to only use a handful of gun ranges within the City represented "immense progress" in public safety. Instead, the brief just ends right after this assertion. Possibly because even a brief "in support of respondents" can't figure a way to justify the challenged laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

Bloomberg's minions start by $peaking out for indoor militias...
 

Quote

 

...the Court need not opine on the scope of the right to bear arms outside the home.

1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and no person other than amicus and its counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.

 

The standard footnote there is pretty amusing in this case. After Bloomberg gave them a wad of money, they self-funded this brief. Naturally, I continue to support his right to $peak in this way.

In support of indoor militias, they cite a case from

Quote

(1886) (holding that participation in a non-government-organized militia “cannot be claimed as a right independent of law”). And it did the same in Heller, explaining that “weapons of war,” not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, fall outside of the Second Amendment’s scope—even though federal and state governments may mandate their use in the military or militia.

The Colonial militias that Paul Revere told to stay indoors were hardly authorized by the British government of the time.

Here's what the Miller case said about "weapons of war" and their owners:

Quote

ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

For some reason, the Miller court did not say "expected to appear in their own homes only." I wonder why? And why those here who want to focus only on the militia clause of the second amendment think banning "military style" weapons (by which they mean squirrel shooters and plinking handguns) is consistent with the people assembling a militia using arms "supplied by themselves?"

 

Share this post


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

Bloomberg's minions start by $peaking out for indoor militias...
 

The standard footnote there is pretty amusing in this case. After Bloomberg gave them a wad of money, they self-funded this brief. Naturally, I continue to support his right to $peak in this way.

In support of indoor militias, they cite a case from

The Colonial militias that Paul Revere told to stay indoors were hardly authorized by the British government of the time.

Here's what the Miller case said about "weapons of war" and their owners:

For some reason, the Miller court did not say "expected to appear in their own homes only." I wonder why? And why those here who want to focus only on the militia clause of the second amendment think banning "military style" weapons (by which they mean squirrel shooters and plinking handguns) is consistent with the people assembling a militia using arms "supplied by themselves?"

 

You need to get the basics on Miller right, if you want to quote Miller. Was Ms. Parker covered by Miller in 1939, or not? She was the people in 1939.

 

 

Alexander Hamilton was a Boston Selectman. For a while, he oversaw the militia in Boston. He obtained permission for the militia to fire their weapons on the Boston Common when mustered. 

The Commons were outdoors, in public, where gunz were taboo, so this was touchy stuff. Hamilton needed an exception for all this, but his men didn't need permission to fire any guns at home.

Share this post


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

You need to get the basics on Miller right, if you want to quote Miller.

Basics like this?

On 1/14/2018 at 9:46 AM, jocal505 said:

United States vs Miller considered Eric Miller as part of The People.


You're going to have to start reading the cases you wish to discuss or you'll keep making a fool of yourself on the basics. His name was Jack.

Not Otis. Not Eric. Jack. And yes, they heard his case because he was part of The People.

20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The Commons were outdoors, in public, where gunz were taboo, so this was touchy stuff. Hamilton needed an exception for all this, but his men didn't need permission to fire any guns at home.

We don't have any historic tradition of practicing with guns indoors and they were never "taboo" outdoors until very recently and only then in partisan TeamD circles of "thought."

I don't have any problem with the kind of regulations you're clumsily trying to address. I could fire my guns indoors but I don't. I'm free to fire them outdoors on my property. EXCEPT that there are rules against it if I get near the road. Rules that make sense, because firing near the road might endanger people on the road. One of the thousands of gun regulations to which I have no objection. But the fact that there's a small slice of my property where it's illegal to fire guns doesn't mean firing them outdoors is "taboo" and never has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

Indoor militias again.

Quote

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), this Court explained that the “core protection” of the Second Amendment is the “right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

That's not what happened. Heller said this about the core purpose:

Quote

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

But the court also said this:

Quote

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

"Houses" are mentioned in the fourth amendment and most would agree that the need for protections against unreasonable searches and seizures is "most acute" in the home. Nobody would say that this means the fourth amendment doesn't apply outside the home. Yet that's what 139 critters say about the second amendment.

The full sentence that the critters are talking about is this:

Quote

And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

The court didn't decide issues not before them, like whether we had outdoor militias. TeamD grabbers have taken that lack of a decision to mean that having guns outdoors has always been "taboo" as Joe did above. Talk about getting the basics wrong!

 

139 critters go on to show why TeamD has engaged in this deliberate misreading:

Quote

If this Court reaches the question of the constitutionality of the former New York City premises license rule at issue in this case (the “Rule”),2 the Court ought to determine that the Rule burdened only non-core Second Amendment rights, is thus subject to intermediate scrutiny, and satisfies that test, as the Second Circuit correctly held.

The thing is, the Heller court never said that the "core lawful purpose of self defense" applied only in the home and didn't exist outside the home.

This is one of few briefs "in support of respondents" that actually tries to support the respondents.

Quote

The Second Circuit properly determined that the challenged regulation, which limited the transportation of firearms outside of the home, did not significantly burden the core Second Amendment right to keep arms in one’s home for self-defense.

And that kind of nonsense will continue until the Supreme Court calls it nonsense, which I hope they take the opportunity to do.

Quote

Given that the former Rule at most burdened only non-core Second Amendment rights, the Second Cir-cuit was correct to apply intermediate scrutiny—for all of the reasons discussed herein—and correct in ul-timately concluding that New York’s Rule was “sub-stantially related to the achievement of an important government interest.” City of New York, 883 F.3d at 62 (quoting Cuomo, 804 F.3d at 261). The rationale for the former Rule—“protect[ing] public safety and prevent[ing] crime”—was clearly an important gov-ernmental interest. Id.; accord, e.g., Heller III, 801 F.3d at 274. And the City proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its regulation was “substantially related” to that interest, through testimony from the former Commander of the License Division, Andrew Lunetta, who discussed why the restriction was nec-essary to prevent “potential threat to public safety.”

One gungrabby bureaucrat said that if the very few, very wealthy, very politically connected people who are allowed to own guns were also allowed to do crazy shit like taking the guns to a gunsmith without asking prior permission, they might just load them and road rage with them. An absurd projection is hardly a compelling governmental interest.

Quote

This testimony was suf-ficient: As the Second Circuit noted, intermediate scrutiny does not require a perfect, narrowly tailored or least restrictive fit between a law and the govern-ment’s ends. Id. at 62. The evidence was non-specu-lative and “fairly supported” the City’s rationale.

Umm, no.The speculation of one gungrabby bureaucrat was non-evidence would be more accurate.

This is why they're trying so hard with such an absurd argument:

Quote

To satisfy the “demanding standard” of strict scrutiny, the government must not only “specifically identify an ‘actual problem’ in need of solving,” but also build a robust record showing that the challenged law is “actually necessary to the solution.”

This might require things like, you know, releasing the City's records of how often the very few, very wealthy, very connected legal gun owners in NYC actually commit crimes and then showing how they are an actual problem. The reason the City won't release those records is simple: people who can actually manage to own a gun in NYC go to places like Pedophile Island if they're going to commit violent crimes. The speculation of Lunetta notwithstanding, they don't shoot up the streets.

I actually agree with the 139 critters on the "historic analogue" part of their argument.

Quote

Congress has the authority to pass appro-priate legislation consistent with the Article I grant of the legislative power, without looking to whether there is historical precedent for such legislation. Oth-erwise, Congress would be unable to pass laws regu-lating any number of subject matters that did not ex-ist and were not even contemplated at the time of the nation’s Founding, such as the internet, space flight, cancer treatments, nuclear power, or methampheta-mines.

Or... say... Stun Guns. But these same 139 critters are the types who were fine with a circuit court decision denying Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice in that area. I'm glad the Supreme Court unanimously slapped that argument down, but the fact that it made it all the way to the Supreme Court is disturbing and shows that the TeamD/grabby animus against self-defense knows no reasonable bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

More proof that "social science" is oxymoronic.

Quote

Corpus linguis-tics is an empirical approach to researching the use and meaning of language by surveying large collec-tions of written or spoken texts, known as a corpus (singular) or corpora (plural). In the last few years, historians have assembled several voluminous new corpora containing American and English historical sources, which have allowed researchers for the first time to search for specific terms and phrases in hun-dreds of thousands of Founding-era texts. Using this new technology, corpus linguistics researchers have unearthed a wealth of new evidence over the past dec-ade showing that the phrase “keep and bear arms” overwhelmingly had a collective, militaristic meaning at the Founding.

They didn't look into what "the right of The People" may have meant in this amendment and others. Too inconvenient.
 

Quote

 

1. “Bear arms” does not denote individ-ual possession of firearms by civil-ians

Consistent with its military origins, the phrase “bear arms” has a collective connotation, typically referring to “the act of soldiering and the use of weap-ons in war.”

 

And yet, as readers of the Miller decision know, individuals were expected to appear "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and the individual, not the group, was subject to fines for not appearing with arms and ammo.

One of their examples that they say suggests a military use is:

Quote

That every Person who will go for Ire-land on these Conditions, shall out of his first share of Money, buy for himself and every Relation and Servant that he car-ries with him (who are able to bear Arms,) a good Musket, or Case of Pistols for the defence of his Family.” [1690].

Ummm... buying your own guns suggests a right of the people and doing it "for the defense of his Family" isn't military at all. At least to me, but I'm not a cunning linguist.

Another one:

Quote

“That the People have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of themselves and the State, and as standing Armies in the Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the Military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by, the Civil Power.” [1776].

Umm... "for the Defence of themselves and the State" suggests to me two purposes. The first one isn't military.
 

Quote

 

Corpus evidence reveals that in Founding-era sources “keep arms” “almost always appears in a military context.” Baron, Corpus Evidence, at 513. The phrase appeared twenty-eight times in COEME and ten times in COFEA, and after excluding duplicates and irrelevant entries (e.g., where “keep” meant “prevent”), researchers found that twenty-five of the remaining examples “refer to weapons for use in the military or the militia.” Ibid. Representative exam-ples include— •

“It now being thought not necessary to view the arms and ammunition of those obliged to keep arms more than once a year.” [1776]. • “

 

Those obliged to keep their own personal weapons were fined for not doing so. The quoted sentence merely says that checking up on them annually wasn't considered necessary, but the Founding Era laws quoted extensively in the case of Eric (or possibly Jack) Miller show that whether anyone checked up on them or not, The People were obliged to "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves."

Share this post


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

More proof that "social science" is oxymoronic.

They didn't look into what "the right of The People" may have meant in this amendment and others. Too inconvenient.
 

And yet, as readers of the Miller decision know, individuals were expected to appear "bearing arms supplied by themselves" and the individual, not the group, was subject to fines for not appearing with arms and ammo.

One of their examples that they say suggests a military use is:

Ummm... buying your own guns suggests a right of the people and doing it "for the defense of his Family" isn't military at all. At least to me, but I'm not a cunning linguist.

Another one:

Umm... "for the Defence of themselves and the State" suggests to me two purposes. The first one isn't military.
 

Those obliged to keep their own personal weapons were fined for not doing so. The quoted sentence merely says that checking up on them annually wasn't considered necessary, but the Founding Era laws quoted extensively in the case of Eric (or possibly Jack) Miller show that whether anyone checked up on them or not, The People were obliged to "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves."

How would your jackass militia (featuring Publius and Mr. Miller) do against Napoleon? What could go wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

More indoor militia nonsense.
 

Quote

 

Second, the Circuit looks to the severity of that burden, and how close it comes to the “core Second Amendment protection identified in Heller”—the “right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use armsin defense of hearth and home.”Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 93-94; see also Heller, 554 U.S. at 599, 628-29 (self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right and is “most acute” in the home). If the law does not burden the core protection of self-defense in the home, intermediate scrutiny applies and the government need only show that the law is “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest,” giving “substantial deference” to the legislature’s predictive judgments and policy determinations.Kachalsky, 701 F.3dat 93-94, 97.

This focus in Heller on the “core” right to self-defense within the home necessarily means that the judiciary has a more limited role in reviewing, and the legislature has more discretion in crafting, laws restricting firearm possession and use outside of the home, in public.

 

"Most acute" within the home implies that the core lawful purpose of self-defense applies outside the home but grabbers will continue to try to twist it into "doesn't apply outside the home" until the Supreme Court corrects them.

Quote

Firearm regulations like the City’s, including its premises handgun regulation, have been proven to work.

Well, no, the City has the information about how premises license holders have behaved and won't share it. Possibly because the "proof" would be as embarrassing as the law they repealed and indefensible in court.

Quote

Striking down the former rule opens the door to further challenges to the regulations needed in a densely populated area like New York City. Without these regulations, New York risks an increase in the number of guns trafficked in and out of city limits, which in turn increases the likelihood of criminals obtaining guns. New York City has used its authority to decrease the odds of this chain of eventsoccurring and to reduce the level of gun crime in the City. It should not be required to change its local laws and risk an increase in gun violence.

Hah! The only thing that required the City and State to change their laws was the case before the Supreme Court and their desire to avoid trying to defend an indefensible regulatory scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong link there, the brief above was the Citizens Crime Commission's not the cunning linguists'.

Moving along...

On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:

This one focuses solely on the mootness controversy.

Quote

Insofar as the voluntary cessation doctrine seeks to prevent defendants from easily reversing course, the doctrine is inapplicable when a defendant is bound by a different actor’s intervening action. Here, New York State—a government entity distinct from respondent New York City—has adopted legislation that authorizes petitioners to transport their hand-guns outside the City to second homes and shooting ranges. Under the New York Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, the State’s law preempts inconsistent municipal regulation. Even if New York City wished to reinstate the challenged regulation—a desire it disavows—it could not.

Gunshine can be very convenient.

They apparently expect people to believe that the Cuomo regime suddenly decided, all on its own, to relax gun control and the decision was completely unrelated to this case. It's laughable. The State is obviously trying to use Gunshine (also known as preemption) to provide cover for NYC on the cessation doctrine issue.

The City's professed lack of any desire to return to their ridiculous rules is just as laughable. Grabbers never think any burden on gun owners can go too far because TeamD. This hasn't changed and probably won't in the near future.

Quote

Of course, governments are not wholly exempt from voluntary cessation analysis. There are situations in which a government makes plain that, despite a temporary pause, the challenged conduct will recur.

Situations like having Governor Cuomo in office, for example.

Quote

In the dispute here, by contrast, New York State legislated without sunset or any other indication that it might change course following a dismissal by this Court.

The fact that NY State relaxed gun control laws in response to this case is an indication that they might quickly undo what they quickly did.

Quote

Petitioners offer a skeptical take on the lawmak-ing that has occurred. They allege that respondents engaged in “maneuvers” and “machinations” intend-ed to “frustrate” this Court’s review; they indicate that the City’s “motivations” are unlawful or other-wise improper; and they suggest that the state legis-lation is a product of improper collusion. Petitioners’ Response 23, 25 (relying on Knox, 567 U.S. at 307, and City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 288 (2000)). These derogatory characterizations turn democratic principles on their head.

Those "derogatory" characterizations would not be made if someone suggested any other motivation for the sudden State action. But there is no such suggestion.

Quote

We cannot know fully what prompted the New York legislature to adopt the July 2019 amendments to Section 400.00(6). The challenges of ascertaining the motivations of multimember political bodies are well known. Members of this Court have recognized that a consolidated legislative motive sometimes may be absent, or at least obscured to outside ob-servers.

Gee, we just can't figure out why Cuomo and Co suddenly acted to relax gun control, something completely out of character for them. But that Gunshine sure is convenient for mooting this case, so let's not look further. Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 1:27 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Basics like this?


. And yes, they heard his case because he was part of The People.

 

You, sir, are a liar.

In their own words, the SC supported Mr. Miller's rights as "a male physically capable of the common defense." I learned this from you, in 2014. The Miller decision excluded Mrs. Miller's gun rights.. The MIller case excluded Ms. Parker's gun rights.. And the Miller case failed to protect the gun rights of old geezes like you and me, if any.

Time for CATO to come to the rescue, by making shit up and lying away. Time to fabricate history, time to to introduce alternate facts. Phony stuff.

 

 

In your post, you are calmly side-stepping the reality and tradition of the Statute of Northampton. Since the days of the sword, English laws placed a stigma on weapons confrontations. Manslaughter was suspected in each fracas. Even the righteous found the legal proceedings, and their outcomes, expensive.

After each armed conflict. the citizens' weapons were confiscated, both fighters went to "goal," and fines were usually imposed. Even carrying such a weapon into  the "King's spaces", and especially into habitated areas, was considered a misdemeanor, legally.

We only had three cities in the colonies. and each had modest gun and powder controls. Court cases in the days of the founding fathers were guided by the four volume legal summary of Justice William Blackstone. He was unequivocal in his support of the Statute of Northampton.

 

Then things changed. A culture of gunplay evolved in the USA, and will either evolve further, or more likely, will convolute by inertia (and karma). We have a unique culture which compares poorly with first world nations. We need to sort this out.

Share this post


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

You, sir, are a liar.

In their own words, the SC supported Mr. Miller's rights as "a male physically capable of the common defense." I learned this from you, in 2014. The Miller decision excluded Mrs. Miller's gun rights.. The MIller case excluded Ms. Parker's gun rights.. And the Miller case failed to protect the gun rights of old geezes like you and me, if any.

And all these years later, you still haven't read it for yourself.

You skipped a word, by the way. Dicta in that case said "free" males, excluding people you view as immature and volatile because of their skin color.

It's true that our history contains lots of examples of racial and sex discrimination like those, but the fact that such things existed in Colonial times doesn't mean we continued to accept them in the 20th century. If we did, the Supreme Court would never have heard Otis McDonald's case. But they did. You should probably read that one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Thanks for the race-baiting. Such a clever Libertarian we find here.)

 

We need a source supporting your never-ending claim that the Miller case has fuck all to do with non-militia gun rights.

Sol once stated, flatly, that you mis-quote case law. The Miller case is a strong example of this. Out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 11:05 AM, jocal505 said:

We need a source supporting your never-ending claim that the Miller case has fuck all to do with non-militia gun rights.

You haven't read it because you can't find it? That's easily fixed:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

the PLCAA and FOPA legislation needs to be aired out, and nullified. 


This is why non-readers are so funny. You don't know that the amicus briefs posted from the grabby side have been relying on FOPA as a reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to review NYC's ridiculous rules. Too funny.

Share this post


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

You haven't read it because you can't find it? That's easily fixed:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html


This is why non-readers are so funny. You don't know that the amicus briefs posted from the grabby side have been relying on FOPA as a reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to review NYC's ridiculous rules. Too funny.

1.Poorly sourced: that's just the cover sheet to United States vs. Miller. It considers the gun rights of a male capable of the common defense.

2.Dude, Miller v the USA had a flaw, which was a basis of gun rights in the SC... for fighting age males only.

3. I read  what I want, when I want to read.

4. I've read a thousand pages of Patrick Charles recently, and some Darrel Miller and Robert Speitzer, which was superb. It painted you as a teller of fantasy, and as an abuser of factual history.

 

You are a scary and flakey guy. Dogballs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 5:30 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

Dicta in that case said "free" males

Dicta is not law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:
Quote

New York City and other dense urban centers—where no resident is ever truly alone and every individual’s actions necessarily impact those around her—presentmany of the same heightened regulatory needs that characterize the “sensitive places” that Heller recognized. Neither New York City’s former rule nor its current regulatory and licensing scheme are overreaching and unconstitutional limitations on a fundamental right, but are instead a response to the unavoidable reality that any gun in New York City, even when lawfully and responsibly possessed or carried, poses grave dangers to neighbors and passersby. Petitioners’ briefing ignores this reality in its entirety.

LMAO. If a licensed owner takes a gun to a gunsmith without asking nanny state permission, that poses a grave danger! Hence the prohibition on doing so was just more "common sense" gun control, since that's the only kind of gun control.

Glad to see they are fellow Favre fans...

Quote

While law enforcement encounters provide myriad ex-amples of apparent collisions between the interest in safe-guarding the public and the limitations on government ac-tion imposed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amend-ments, the principle that context-specific public-safety concerns inform how courts construe fundamental rights applies more generally. Indeed, even though this Court has held that some false statements enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, United Statesv. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 730 (2012), it is axiomatic that the Bill of Rights would not shield someone who falsely yells fire in a crowded theater precisely because of the dangers created by the ensuing panic. Schenckv. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). Consistent with the paramount interest in the protection of the public, the First Amendment has his-torically never interfered with states’ police powers to regulate or proscribe speech that is integral to criminal conduct or speech that is “directed to inciting or produc-ing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or pro-duce such action,” among others. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969); see alsoGiboney v. Empire Stor-age & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). The First Amend-ment’s unqualified textual command that “Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech” has never compelled a different result.

Wow. First, fourth, fifth and sixth amendment comparisons. They must think everything is related to guns!

Quote

Dense urban centers such as New York City present similar risks of unintended conse-quences and collateral damage if significantly more indi-viduals are able to carry guns in such close quarters on a daily basis.3 As explained below, the peculiar challenges of ensuring public safety in a high-population, high-den-sity city such as New York City amply support the City’s regulatory and licensing scheme, including the former rule at the heart of this case.

This is nonsense because some of the petitioners live closer to New Jersey gun ranges than to the NYC ones they were allowed to attend. So the former rule put their guns on more NYC streets than just allowing them to go to New Jersey.

Quote

Even if only those persons vetted and licensed to keep a handgun in their New York homeswere permitted to carry their arms around New York City, there would be a substantial number of instances in which they would turn to their weapons—or others would obtain them—in the frequent frustrations, annoyances, and altercations that characterize life in a dense urban center.

NYC has the data on what licensees have done with their guns and could release it to confirm or deny this speculation. But they won't. Gee, I wonder why?

Quote

Though the NYPD cannot keep stolen guns out of New York City entirely, the ability to enact regulations like those that existed at the outset of the case go a long way to help. The limits on public carry ensure that gun owners will not accidentally leave guns in public spaces where the guns would be available to children and criminals alike.

NYC has the data on what licensees' guns have been stolen and could release it to confirm or deny this speculation. But they won't. Gee, I wonder why?

Quote

States and communities—particularly urban ones—have imposed strict regulations on the possession and carry of guns since before the adoption of the Second Amendment.

Oh dear. Stites Rats advocates. He must like discrimination, screwing groups of people, and probably slavery too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:
23 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

You haven't read it because you can't find it? That's easily fixed:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html


This is why non-readers are so funny. You don't know that the amicus briefs posted from the grabby side have been relying on FOPA as a reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to review NYC's ridiculous rules. Too funny.

1.Poorly sourced: that's just the cover sheet to United States vs. Miller.

Hah! Can't even find it when provided a direct link to the opinion.

Share this post


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

Hah! Can't even find it when provided a direct link to the opinion.

Hi Tom. Happy Saturday, too.

 

Let's review all this. You made a loud mistake, on a basic: Miller case law. You got called out on this, because you had quoted the key element of Miller's selection (that he was a male capable of the common defense) on four different threads, in 2014.  So you took a black Sharpie and extended your mistake...

 

You have been called out for "alternate facts,", within a limited community. (Where is your dignity? Where is your self-respect? You smell like dogballs.)

Yo, either STFU, or provide some source already (besides your own, shitty, misleading, self-serving claim) linking the people's gun rights to Miller.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 7:05 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

 Aug 12 2019     Amicus brief of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
Aug 12 2019     Motion to participate in oral argument of Neal Goldfarb submitted.

Being a fan of unintentional humor, I hope Mr. Goldfarb is offered the opportunity to get up in front of SCOTUS and say stuff like this:

So the BIG ERROR in Heller was that the court somehow acted like "bear arms" is in any way similar to "bear weapons" when clearly one has almost four more letters so is very, very different.

You twisted the shit out of this one.Based on info which has emerged, Neal Goldfarb and others, Baron, Blackman and Phillips, say that Heller was dead wrong about 'bear arms." Each did his own independent analysis. Goldfarb's brief wants the basic Heller decision suspended for being inappropriate. 

Share this post


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

Why do you want to ruin my fun? :(

Well, we all know Joe will never read it - even though it is only ~5 pages long.

The echo chamber will never read it, because their feelings tell them something must be done. "doing something" never seems to cover things that kill or injure at rates that far exceed firearms.

Share this post


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

Based on info which has emerged, Neal Goldfarb and others, Baron, Blackman and Phillips, say that Heller was dead wrong about 'bear arms."

Yeah, I read it. Because "bear arms" is sooooo different from "bear weapons."

I'd really enjoy seeing that argument made in this case. It's awesome when the room erupts in laughter at oral arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The computerized study of language now reveals that Scalia was making shit up, about a military term, to "bear arms." And Tom and bpm go into obfuscation mode.

 

I have a question for you jerks. If Tom tells sustained lies about the basics of United States vs Miller, what good is hs interpretation of Kelo vs New London?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep 04 2019    Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.

Oh boy.
 

Quote

 

The threshold question, then, is not whether the Second Amendment protects an “absolute” right “to train anywhere one wishe” or to “transport[] ... guns without restriction.” NYC.Br.20, 23, 34. It is instead whether the conduct that the transport ban severely restricts—transporting an unloaded and securely stowed firearm outside the home so that it can be lawfully used elsewhere—is protected by the Second Amendment. As to that relevant question, there can be no serious debate that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects that conduct and that a law restricting that conduct must be justified by the government. Indeed, the only way such a restriction could plausibly fail to even implicate the Second Amendment is if the right to keep and bear arms is strictly confined to the home.

It is not.

 

That's going to trigger heck out of the indoor militia crowd.

Quote

As for history and tradition, the City does not identify a single historical (or even modern-day) law that restricted the right of individuals to transport their firearms to places where they could lawfully engage in firearms training or keep and bear them for self-defense. Indeed, the City’s misguided effort to show that the right to train was historically subject to some modest time and place restrictions only underscores that the right to transport firearms to lawful places was presumed, and that its wholesale restrictions on that right are wholly unprecedented. The City can point to laws placing certain training locations off-limits, but when it comes to a law saying that firearms cannot be transported from the home to places where they can be lawfully used and possessed, the City comes up empty. The City’s reliance on early laws prohibiting the “indiscreet” or “random” firing of firearms in public is equally misplaced. See NYC.Br.20-23 (citing SA5-6). Petitioners have never made the absurd claim that the Second Amendment protects a right to fire their handguns at random throughout the streets of New York City. Laws prohibiting individuals from firing their handguns in certain public places absent the need to use them for self-defense thus lend no support to the City’s effort to preclude individuals from transporting their handguns to out-of-city locations where they are lawfully entitled to keep and bear them. If anything, those laws fatally undermine the City’s cause. After all, there would have been no need to restrict the indiscriminate firing of firearms in public if there were a history or tradition of confining firearms to the home.

The City is basically making the same argument we see over and over here: if you don't like some nonsensical regulation, you must not like any regulations at all!

I found it interesting that the brief only addressed the suggestion of mootness in a footnote:

Quote

The City prefaces its merits argument by repeating its contention that this case is moot. It is not. As petitioners have explained, they manifestly have not obtained everything from the unilateral and begrudging changes in city and state law that they could have gotten were this case litigated to a favorable result, with declaratory relief that the transport ban is (and always was) unconstitutional and binding, forward-looking injunctive relief. The City notably does not claim otherwise, here or in its mootness papers. The case is thus not moot for Article III purposes. And to the extent the City’s objection is merely prudential, there is no plausible basis to reward the City’s transparent effort to frustrate this Court’s discretionary review.

It's the "binding, forward-looking injunctive relief" that is a real problem. As noted, the City and State could, and I think likely would, immediately undo the changes in law they have enacted in an effort to avoid arguing this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those wacky Brits!

Quote

 

Quote

that no person or persons of what estate or degree he or they be, except he or they in their own right or in the right of his or their wife to his or their own uses or any other to the use of such person or persons, have lands, tenements, fees, annuities or office to the yearly value of one hundred pounds, from or after the last day of June next coming shall shoot any crossbow, handgun, hagbutt or demy hake, or use or keep in his or their houses or elsewhere any Crossbow, handgun, hagbutt or demy hake, otherwise or in any manner then is hereafter in the present Act declared,

I thought hagbutt was what you saw when Hillary was going away from you.

Still not sure what a demy hake is. But it is clear that the goals of gun control haven't changed since the 16th century: it's for plebes, not rich people. The rich were allowed to have guns in England back then much like in NYC today.

Quote

And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons form the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds;

Non-readers like jocal probably believe that this means they couldn't fire weapons outdoors but it obviously means that such behavior was permitted as long as they were shooting at a bank of earth or for self-defense or defense of their home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from that supplemental appendix:

Quote

An Act for Restraining the Disorderly Practice of Discharging Fire Arms at Certain Hours and Places, § 4 (Ohio 1790), reprinted in 1 The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwestern Territory, Adopted or Enacted from 1788 to 1833 Inclusive 104, 105 (Salmon P. Chase ed. 1833)

The Act starts by saying you have to be a quarter mile from town to shoot and sets out a fine from 1 to 5 dollars for violators. But it goes on...
 

Quote

 

Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to extend to any person lawfully using firearms as offensive or defensive weapons, in annoying or opposing a common enemy, or defending his or her person or property, or the person or property of any other, against the invasion or depredations of an enemy, or in the support of the laws and government; or against the attacks of rebels, highwaymen, robbers, thieves, or others unlawfully assailing him or her, or in any other manner where such opposition, defense, or resistance is allowed by the law of the land.

 

The bolded part is a double trigger for the indoor militia crowd there. It explicitly allows self-defense and also explicitly includes women.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 5:47 AM, jocal505 said:

On an international level, both "bear arms" and "defence" meant national militia', in the writing of the day. Over and over.

"National militia" against "highwaymen, robbers, thieves, or others unlawfully assailing him or her" huh, Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure how NYC thinks this supplemental appendix helps their case. Here's another:
 

Quote

 

Indianapolis, Ind., Ordinances: Public Health and Comfort, § 9 (1869), reprinted in Byron K. Elliott, The Charter and General Ordinances of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, in Force August 1st, 1869, at 291 (1869)

Whoever shall fire a gun or pistol in said city, shall be fined therefor in any sum not exceeding fifty dollars: Provided, That such penalty for shooting shall not apply to military companies, while performing military duty, or to any police officer or officers while in discharge of any duty in pursuance of any ordinance of said city, or in obedience to any law of the State of Indiana; or to any person who may fire any gun or pistol in or upon his own premises, except where the ball or shot shall pass beyond the limits of said premises, or in defense of his own life, liberty or property, or when attached by any vicious animal.

 

As the bolded bit shows, it's another example showing that self-defense using guns was allowed, even in cities that otherwise prohibited firing of guns.
 

Quote

 

An Ordinance Regulating the Police of the City of Quincy, Ill., § 5 (1841), reprinted in Samuel P. Church, The Revised Ordinances of the City of Quincy, Ill. to Which are Prefixed the Charter of the City of Quincy, and the Amendment Thereto 47 (1841)

Be it further ordained, That no person shall, within the limits of said city, fire or discharge any cannon, musket, rifle, fowling piece, or other fire arms, or air-gun, except in cases of necessity...

 

"...cases of necessity" can only mean in self-defense and maybe in defense of property in this context. It goes on and on. If they're trying to prove that guns could not be fired in cities under any circumstances, they keep proving the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A week from next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear about the mootness issue in this case.

A SCOTUSblog overview of mootness
 

Quote

 

...

Soon after the court agreed to hear the New York City case, perhaps because of the prospect of a ruling that might expand the scope of Second Amendment rights, New York City officials moved to amend the challenged regulation and then asked the justices to dismiss the case as moot.

What is mootness and when does it apply? As a general matter, a case becomes moot when the parties no longer have an interest that can be resolved by the court’s decision.

The rule is derived from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which defines “the judicial power” as extending to “cases” and “controversies.” The Supreme Court has long interpreted this language to mean that federal courts have jurisdiction to decide only those cases in which the parties have concrete interests that will be resolved by a judicial decision. Those tangible interests must be present at every stage of the lawsuit, the court has said, from initial filing to final decision.

A principal theory behind the case and controversy requirement – and behind the mootness doctrine, as well – is that courts will reach the best decisions when the cases they decide are litigated in a process that is truly adversarial on behalf of parties who have a real stake in the outcome.

When tangible interests are no longer present for the parties in a dispute, a case may become moot. The theory, again, is that parties to a case may not make the best arguments and engage in zealous advocacy if they no longer have genuine, tangible interests in the outcome.

 

The status of the laws at issue in this case, and any future ones that might be enacted by NYC or other local governments, is still a tangible interest.

I hadn't heard about this one:

Quote

Typically, a dispute will become moot because no issues remain that will have a real effect on the litigants. In one well-known example, DeFunis v. Odegaard, the Supreme Court ruled that the claim of a white law student that he was denied admission to law school because of his race and the operation of an affirmative action plan was moot because the student had been allowed to attend law school while the case was pending and was close to graduating. A determination by the Supreme Court that the student was or was not denied admission because of his race would not have affected that individual student’s status or interests, the justices said.

In the current case, NY State and NY City could reverse the changes in law that they made to moot this case in a lot less than four years.

Quote

Enter the New York gun case. When New York amended its regulations, lawyers for the city quickly asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot. The challenged regulations would no longer be enforced, the city argued, and any ruling on the constitutionality of those regulations would have no impact on anyone. The city also noted that New York state changed its gun licensing law to require communities to allow transport of guns within the state. The city “no longer has any stake in whether the Constitution requires localities to allow people to transport licensed handguns to second homes or firing ranges outside of municipal borders,” the city said in its motion asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot.

That's true in part, but before amending their regulations, NY City proposed doing so and immediately asked that the case be suspended based on that proposal. It didn't work

On 4/30/2019 at 7:19 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

And yesterday, the Supreme Court went NUTZ

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

Grabbers also went NUTZ
 

Quote

 

The battle escalated in mid-August when U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., filed a friend-of-the-court brief for himself and four other Democratic senators. The brief, unique in its tone, warned that if the justices expand Second Amendment rights and fail to dismiss the case as moot, the ruling will fuel a growing public perception that the Supreme Court is acting politically and not applying legal principles. The brief accuses gun-rights groups of “an industrial-strength influence campaign” aimed at the court. “The Supreme Court is not well,” Whitehouse concluded, suggesting that the court “heal itself” before there are serious public demands to restructure it.

The Whitehouse brief prompted strong, critical commentary from conservative groups, transforming the mootness fight into a proxy for warfare over the direction of the Supreme Court. “To Save a Bad Gun Law, Democratic Senators Threaten the Supreme Court,” a Heritage Foundation headline proclaimed.

 

"Unique" is hardly descriptive. No other amicus brief I've ever seen in this case or any other threatens the court.

I think those Senators vastly misoverestimate public backlash should the Supreme Court hear this case instead of calling it off. That's because NYC had indefensibly bad gun laws, as their hasty efforts to moot this case indicate. If they thought they could defend them, in court or in public perception, they would have defended them instead of changing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still plowing through that supplemental appendix. A long train of old laws against shooting guns inside city limits, an issue not really relevant to the current Supreme Court case and not really controversial then or now. Many of them contain specific self-defense exceptions.

Fort Worth, Texas had a sort of interesting one.
 

Quote

 

Ordinances of the City of Fort Worth, Ord. No. 40, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Shooting Off, Firing or Discharging of Fire-Arms, Etc. (1880), reprinted in Revised Ordinances of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, 1873–1884, at 64–65 (1885)

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fort Worth: § 1. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to shoot off, fire, or discharge any gun, pistol, revolver or any firearm of any description, or to fire, explode or set off any squib, firecracker, torpedo, roman candle, sky-rocket, or other thing containing powder or other explosive matter, or to throw any fire-ball or make any bon-fire in the corporate limits of this city, and that any person or persons violating the provisions of this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than one dollar nor more than one hundred dollars. Provided that this shall not apply to any licensed shooting gallery nor to the shooting of dogs running at large in violation of the city ordinances.

 

 

Texans. What are you going to do?

Next comes a long train of 18th century laws requiring militia training. None of them seem to indicate that "well regulated" meant "prohibited from having guns" back then.

Next they cite old laws about storage of gunpowder. The one from NY City in 1784

Quote

it shall not be lawfull for any merchant, shopkeeper, or retailer, or any other person, or persons whatsoever, to have or keep any quantity of gun powder exceeding twenty-eight pounds weight, in any one place, less than one mile to the northward of the city hall of the said city, except in the public magazine at the Fresh-water, and the said quantity of twenty-eight pounds weight, which shall be lawfull for any person to have and keep at any place within this city, shall be seperated into four stone jugs or tin cannisters, which shall not contain more than seven pounds each, on pain of forfeiting all such gun powder, and the sum of fifty pounds for every hundred weight, and in that proportion for a greater or lesser quantity, and upon pain of forfeiting such quantity which any person may lawfully keep as aforesaid, and which shall not be seperated as above directed

28 lbs? I don't know much about the weapons of that time but that seems like a shitload of gunpowder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this