Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

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

Recommended Posts

  • This travel issue was resolved already? Each grievance was handled, on a state level?
  • Seventy  two pages of panic about stopping for coffee?
  • After the police said go ahead, have a cup?
  • We might want to visit our mother, while driving around with a gun?
  • Gorsuch gets it that a second gun in an empty second home is not desireable?
  • Kagan balks at making a new law, on the spot, for Paul Clement?
  • We want to sue for damages now, because we missed some gun competitions five years ago?
  • We forgot to mention any need for these damages in the paperwork? 

What a joke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting case, but probably won't be that interesting of a decision.  I'm not saying Gorsuch is a racist but...

 

Quote

JUSTICE GORSUCH: What do you do about the fact that that was pre-Rule 54 and the federal rules and so on?

MR. DEARING: Alvarez was not pre-Rule -- Alvarez was -- was about a decade ago. Alvarez was long --

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

MR. DEARING: -- after Rule 54. That's a different -- that's Alejandrino --

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Alejandrino, sorry.

I can see how Alvarez and Alejandrino can be mixed up, after all they're not even 100 years apart and they begin with the same letter. Quality mind there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
  • This travel issue was resolved already? Each grievance was handled, on a state level?
  • Seventy  two pages of panic about stopping for coffee?
  • After the police said go ahead, have a cup?
  • We might want to visit our mother, while driving around with a gun?
  • Gorsuch gets it that a second gun in an empty second home is not desireable? 
  • Kagan balks at making a new law, on the spot, for Paul Clement?
  • We want to sue for damages now, because we missed some gun competitions five years ago?
  • We forgot to mention any need for these damages in the paperwork? 

What a joke.

 

"Continuous and uninterrupted" transport means some kinds of stops but not others, at least according to NYC.

It was Ginsburg, not Gorsuch, though as I've pointed out in the thread on the Gamble case, they do make a cute couple. Are you a g-ist or something? Think all G-named people are the same?

Quote

JUSTICE GINSBURG: One -- one problem with the prior regulation, if you wanted to have a gun in your second home, you had to buy a second gun. And what public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that, therefore, more vulnerable to theft?

The argument today involved the City claiming their new rule doesn't say what it says, and it gives petitioners "all they wanted" but it obviously doesn't. When they brought up the reasons the new law doesn't moot the case, the response was, "but you're talking about the new law and it's not an issue."

Umm... you can't assert that it gives petitioners "all they wanted" and then give such a lame excuse for not hearing objections that it doesn't give them all they wanted.

Share this post


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

 

The argument today involved the City claiming their new rule doesn't say what it says, and it gives petitioners "all they wanted" but it obviously doesn't.

When they brought up the reasons the new law doesn't moot the case, the response was, "but you're talking about the new law and it's not an issue."

Umm... you can't assert that it gives petitioners "all they wanted" and then give such a lame excuse for not hearing objections that it doesn't give them all they wanted.

That's not what the transcript says Tom.  That part of the discussion is about the petitioners looking for SCOTUS to give them an advisory opinion on a matter not before them.  more than half the argument is about the NRA's crappy drafting and failure to amend their claim when NY State stepped in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't figure out bathroom breaks, not if their precious comes along. 

 

Share this post


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

interesting case, but probably won't be that interesting of a decision.  I'm not saying Gorsuch is a racist but...

 

I can see how Alvarez and Alejandrino can be mixed up, after all they're not even 100 years apart and they begin with the same letter. Quality mind there.

The ever popular lefty cry of "racist". Of course, we see those non-racist (D) supporters every time a minority actually dares to not agree with the Party, right?

Speaking of quality minds..

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Clement, as I understand New York's scheme, New York has two kinds of licences. It has a premises license and it has a carry license. And you're attacking the premises license scheme on the ground that it doesn't allow you to carry. So why don't you just attack the carry license scheme? If you want to carry, why didn't your clients get a carry license?

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying.

JUSTICE KAGAN: All I'm asking is -is --is there's a premises scheme and a carrying scheme, and your clients want to carry, which suggests that you should have brought a challenge to the carrying scheme if you thought that that was deficient.

She doesn't seem to understand what a "carry" license actually is. Or she believes that one should have a NYC concealed carry permit in order to be "allowed" to take a firearm to a range outside of NYC.

Share this post


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

That's not what the transcript says Tom.  That part of the discussion is about the petitioners looking for SCOTUS to give them an advisory opinion on a matter not before them.  more than half the argument is about the NRA's crappy drafting and failure to amend their claim when NY State stepped in.

What matter remained before them in the Knox case? Mr. Clement made the obvious point that an effort to moot a case at the last minute is going to be an effort involving the question presented.

The "matter not before them" was whether NYC's "continuous and uninterrupted" transport allowance, among other things, was really "everything petitioners wanted and more." It wasn't.

"You can travel and trust us, we won't bother you, even though the law says we can" is not exactly reassuring when it comes from out of control grabbers like the ones who run NYC and who fought hard to keep their rules right up until SCOTUS granted cert.

Share this post


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

Speaking of quality minds..

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Clement, as I understand New York's scheme, New York has two kinds of licences. It has a premises license and it has a carry license. And you're attacking the premises license scheme on the ground that it doesn't allow you to carry. So why don't you just attack the carry license scheme? If you want to carry, why didn't your clients get a carry license?

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying.

JUSTICE KAGAN: All I'm asking is -is --is there's a premises scheme and a carrying scheme, and your clients want to carry, which suggests that you should have brought a challenge to the carrying scheme if you thought that that was deficient.

She doesn't seem to understand what a "carry" license actually is. Or she believes that one should have a NYC concealed carry permit in order to be "allowed" to take a firearm to a range outside of NYC.

She was feigning ignorance of the fact that it's darn near impossible to get a carry license. A tiny percentage of NYC residents are wealthy and connected enough to get a premises license to exercise their rights and a tiny percentage of those have a carry license. Even being wealthy and connected isn't enough to get a carry license, you have to also be agreeable to the political establishment, which is why John Stossel could not get one after he got death threats.

They use the "good moral character" loophole, but given the NYC history with "stop and frisk" it's not a great leap to think that there are plenty of officials who would agree with this statement:

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

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alito was the only one to really press the question of whether we have ever had indoor militias.
 

Quote

 

MR. DEARING: I think what I'm conceding is that, in the case of a premises license, the Second Amendment has something to say about what effective possession in the home means. And sometimes that may mean that you need to be able to -- that a license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if the person is taking the firearm, the handgun, from the home to a firing range, the person is out on the streets of New York, and if -- unless a total ban on taking it to a firing range would be consistent with the Second Amendment, it follows that the Second Amendment, under at least some circumstances, protects the possession of a handgun outside the home. Isn't that correct?

MR. DEARING: I think -- I think that's a fair way to look at it, that -- that --that -- but --but, from our perspective, the right question regarding a premises license is, did the -- did the rule impermissibly burden effective use of the handgun in the premises? In the same way that to get a gun to a premises, you have to get it somewhere outside -- you know, purchase it somewhere outside your premises and bring it there, that certain things that happen outside the home may -- may be integrally related to effective use of a handgun inside the home.

 

Hah! "May be integrally related?" How about: if you can't bring it home, you can't have it at home, so "absolutely is integrally related."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 5 years of successfully defending NYC's transport rules as "necessary for public safety" we got this yesterday:
 

Quote

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the -- are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

MR. DEARING: We -- we --no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that -- that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

 

Oh. This would have been a lot more credible a few years ago. Yesterday it just looked like they knew all along that their rules were not necessary for public safety.

Share this post


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

The "matter not before them" was whether NYC's "continuous and uninterrupted" transport allowance, among other things, was really "everything petitioners wanted and more." It wasn't.

DISINFORMATION ALERT (the bolded bit.)   According to Dearborn, no such term exists in the state statute. Hmmm, Clement's latest (eigth?)  case before the SC reeks of dishonesty. This is lame.

Quote

P34

(Dearborn here:) The "continuous and uninterrupted" language cited by my friend is not in the state law. The city acknowledges that. And the city's enforcement position is that coffee stops, bathroom breaks are entirely permissible.

P40

(Dearborn) To -- to turn to -- now to the question of future consequences. We are -- we would -- as I've said, the issue about coffee stops is an entirely feigned dispute.

 

Share this post


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

According to Dearborn, no such term exists in the state statute.

He's wrong, something you would know if you bothered reading stuff like page 45 of this.

Enacted by the State and the phrase "continuous and uninterrupted" appears twice on that page.

Share this post


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

 

not exactly reassuring when it comes from out of control grabbers like the ones who run NYC and who fought hard to keep their rules right up until SCOTUS granted cert.

maybe not to you.  we'll see if it is reassuring to the court.

Share this post


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

She was feigning ignorance of the fact that it's darn near impossible to get a carry license

in new york state or NYC?

Share this post


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

in new york state or NYC?

While it may be easier to get an unrestricted handgun license in some upstate counties, it will not do you any good in NYC since they only will allow it if the city endorses it.

If you look at the NYC licensing website, you would see that applying for an unrestricted handgun license isn't even an option.

It was funny when Alito asked about stopping by mom's house in NJ when on your way to or from the range. The correct answer is "without a NJ FPID, you would be breaking NJ law"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
13 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

She was feigning ignorance of the fact that it's darn near impossible to get a carry license. A tiny percentage of NYC residents are wealthy and connected enough to get a premises license to exercise their rights and a tiny percentage of those have a carry license.

in new york state or NYC?

I added sentence two back. If you read past the first sentence, the answer may become clearer.

For those of us concerned about drug/gun war tactics like stop and frisk, the rest of the post might have offered another clue.

You want to take a wild guess before I give away the big mystery you're exploring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

It was funny when Alito asked about stopping by mom's house in NJ when on your way to or from the range. The correct answer is "without a NJ FPID, you would be breaking NJ law"

Correct but unrelated. What was funny to me about it was that Dearing had no answer.

The correct response to the question seemed to me to be a room filled with laughter. I can't believe grabbers are concerned about "gun mayhem" that manifests itself in a brief visit to mom and can't say whether or not that is a crime under NYC law.

Share this post


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

Correct but unrelated. What was funny to me about it was that Dearing had no answer.

The correct response to the question seemed to me to be a room filled with laughter. I can't believe grabbers are concerned about "gun mayhem" that manifests itself in a brief visit to mom and can't say whether or not that is a crime under NYC law.

The NY gun club was granted what it asked for...but it's never enough. And come on, this is not the time or place for Dearborn to posit on travel gun details.If you want to carry a gun and go visit your mother in NY legally, then address the carry laws, here or elsewhere, not the premises laws. 

Good luck in your quest for outdoor gun mayhem, but Clement sounds like a crybaby, and like a weasel. His presentation, overall, is pretty lame for the SC level, IMO.

 

You can't figure out how to go wee wee in NY, or how to visit your muddah in NY...because you brought a damm gun along? LMFAO.

Share this post


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

DISINFORMATION ALERT (the bolded bit.)   According to Dearborn, no such term exists in the state statute. Hmmm, Clement's latest (eigth?)  case before the SC reeks of dishonesty. This is lame.

Quote

P34

(Dearborn here:) The "continuous and uninterrupted" language cited by my friend is not in the state law.

It was nice of you to alert readers that you were about to spread disinformation.

I know we've got lots of non-readers around here who will never click a link and check the appendix, so here's what it says:
 

Quote

 

LAWS OF NEW YORK, 2019

CHAPTER 104 AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to the transport of pistols or revolvers by licensees

Became a law July 16, 2019, with the approval of the Governor. Passed by a majority vote, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows

Transport within New York City pursuant to Paragraph (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this subdivision shall be continuous and uninterrupted

...

the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted; or

...

As provided for under existing law, properly licenses individuals would not be prohibited from transporting a pistol or revolver through the City of New York in a continuous and uninterrupted manner and would not be required to obtain specific written authorization to do so.

 

FACTUAL INFORMATION ALERT: despite the lies of grabbers, the bolded language in the state law above is, well, in the state law above.

Share this post


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

It was nice of you to alert readers that you were about to spread disinformation.

I know we've got lots of non-readers around here who will never click a link and check the appendix, so here's what it says:
 

FACTUAL INFORMATION ALERT: despite the lies of grabbers, the bolded language in the state law above is, well, in the state law above.

Thanks for the correction. Same to @bpm57. Yo dogballs, your key reference here is p45 of 50, in the fucking appendix?

 

Yeah, your task in NY, to gain outdoor gun rights as such, is not over.  Clement sought the SC to declare the onerous acts and the superseded laws of NYC as "un constitutional", after the fact. Pretty lofty stuff...yet the new law stipulates direct travel, eh? Good for them, IMO.

You want premises laws to somehow give you outdoor gun rights? WTF? Holy dogballs, if you want your armed travel bit in NY state to be interrupted by stops at your mother's house, just address the carry laws in NY state. You are too sneaky for your own good: you made the same mistake here as Peruta, where you wanted CC laws to somehow overpower OC laws, while working a fog machine.

You will soon have problems dealing with the actual common law on outdoor guns. Amidst a contagion of violence, you must challenge the successful tradition of the Statute of Northampton.

Share this post


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

Thanks for the correction. Same to @bpm57. Yo dogballs, your key reference here is p45 of 50, in the fucking appendix? 

Yes. I don't see the problem. I read Mr. Dearing's Suggestion of Mootness all the way from page one, where it lists him as counsel of record, to the end. That's how I learn stuff.

Then I used his document to prove he lied to the Supreme Court about what state law says. It seems to me a good reason to believe he was also lying about how it would be enforced.

5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You want premises laws to somehow give you outdoor gun rights? WTF?

I guess a non-reader like yourself would not know it, but again my source is Dearing. Post 1108 above.

Share this post


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

Yes. I don't see the problem. I read Mr. Dearing's Suggestion of Mootness all the way from page one, where it lists him as counsel of record, to the end. That's how I learn stuff.

Then I used his document to prove he lied to the Supreme Court about what state law says. It seems to me a good reason to believe he was also lying about how it would be enforced.

I guess a non-reader like yourself would not know it, but again my source is Dearing. Post 1108 above.

My "non-reading" involves reading half a dozen Libertatian writers, and their claims about founding father MO's. I am not impressed with Kopel and Cottrol, Tom. And you are the turkey who will not stand behind their key scholars, Joyce Malcom, Kates, and Halbrook. 

.

About Post 1108. You are claiming that castle doctrine extends to the porch and beyond, again.

Nothing new here, but you certainly keyed into the only pertinent bit. The NRA spelled this same bit out, with legislation, from the thirties to the fifties: unloaded weapons could be driven to gun stores, and to firing ranges, in trunks of cars, ammo to be elsewhere, etc. The limitations were intentional, and specific, to discourage gun confrontations. Need any cites, from Patrick Charles? 

You are sneaking weapons into the great beyond, beyond hearth and home. So where is your legal basis for this?

Hamilton was once an elected Selectman in the Massachussets Bay Colony.  His Boston minutemen had outdoor gun rights. They were allowed to shoot on the Boston Commons while under muster. It was okay for them to carry unloaded guns from their homes to the Boston Commons, if they were on the way to muster. See how that works?

Let's try it again, real-time. One needs to practice with a gun, so transpo to a gun range is rightful. If you habitate in NY State, just plan a different trip to visit your muddah, or just leave the damn gun compulsion at home. That's where we are here and now, factually. It's where we've been until Larry Pratt and his unusually violent belief system came along, which was 1974.

Share this post


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

About Post 1108. You are claiming that castle doctrine extends to the porch and beyond, again.

Not really. If anything, I'm again claiming that we had outdoor militias.

Noted liar Dearing is claiming that the second amendment extends beyond the home.

Quote

MR. DEARING: I think what I'm conceding is that, in the case of a premises license, the Second Amendment has something to say about what effective possession in the home means. And sometimes that may mean that you need to be able to -- that a license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home.

 

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You are sneaking weapons into the great beyond, beyond hearth and home. So where is your legal basis for this?

Same as always, same as Dearing's, and the same as yours. One needs to practice with a gun, so transpo to a gun range is rightful. Or do you think we have in-home gun ranges to go along with indoor militias?

Share this post


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

anNot really. If anything, I'm again claiming that we had outdoor militias.

Noted liar Dearing is claiming that the second amendment extends beyond the home.

 

Same as always, same as Dearing's, and the same as yours. One needs to practice with a gun, so transpo to a gun range is rightful. Or do you think we have in-home gun ranges to go along with indoor militias?

So far so good. You get an exception to go to the range, and to the gunsmith, and to the second home, the latter in your hardship. You are good to go, You got it all, mate.

MISSION CREEP Wrt carrying them loaded, in the front of the car, for, ahem, the three confrontations mentioned in Heller, you have a ways to go.

So far, you've made two attempts at entering through a side door. In Peruta, you whinged about CC "show cause" restrictions of CC to overpower statewide ban on OC.  You didn't fight OC as required, out in the open, so to speak.. Clement tried the same thing here, using premesis licenses to have unloaded guns in containers roaming all about, sepatate from ammo...for the time being. Your actual goal goes directly to outdoor gun rights, which do not exist, and have never existed.

IF YOU WANT OUTDOOR GUN RIGHTS, USE THE FRONT DOOR. Clear the air. Announce the new Larry Pratt program, and leave the militia, as just a state of mind, out of it. Leave the founding father belief system out of it too, because they went full Blackstone, as I've demonstrated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this day of SC presentations, Dec. 3 2019, we discover big panic about three yuge issues,   two of these from the great Paul Clement. Let's unpack the first SC gun case in ten years, okay?

  • 1. We need to go pee pee on the way to the firing range (in order to condition for, and physically train for, violent behavior, in a country suffering gun violence in schools, and gun violence epidemics in multiple inner cities)
  • 2. We fear repercussions against the plaintiffs, admitted scofflaws, before the SC, even though the plaintiffs have routinely renewed their premesis permits twice during litigation.
  • 3.The introduction of combining gun behavior errands to our mother's house gets tossed in... hearth and home, then just add a distant mother? This contribution came from a SC justice.

Seriously. Is this indirect narrative worthy of a SC presentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 8:27 PM, jocal505 said:

Thanks for the correction. Same to @bpm57. Yo dogballs, your key reference here is p45 of 50, in the fucking appendix?

You have claimed to be a reader of this case, Joe. Why should I have to point you to a filing from months ago?

Share this post


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

1. We need to go pee pee on the way to the firing range

And grabbers knew this when they wrote "continuous and uninterrupted" into state law. Dearing knew it when he lied about that state law to the Supreme Court. You seemed to see the problem with lying to the court about that issue when you believed it was Clement who did it. Guess what? To some people, it's a problem when grabbers lie, even though it's in service of the holy TeamD crusade against gun ownership.

Because he lied about the existence of the law, I believe he's lying about how it will be enforced too. Continuous and uninterrupted means what it says and will be enforced to mean what it says.

Not that preventing minor stops will have any effect on public safety. That isn't the goal. Dearing admitted that the five year defense of the recently-repealed laws was a farce and that public safety won't be affected by the repeal. The goal is the same as always: punish gun ownership. Even a petty punishment like preventing "pee pee" stops is satisfying to grabbers.

Share this post


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

he's lying about how it will be enforced too. Continuous and uninterrupted means what it says and will be enforced to mean what it says.

Here you are, lying while in the same sentence you use to accuse o9thers of lying. The transcript covers the stated position of the police department: coffee stops and pee pee breaks are not considered offenses by the police.

 

8 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The goal is the same as always: punish gun ownership.

You are a victim, among victims, I get it. But the goal is basic, as it was in 1285 and 1329: to keep weapons around to defend one's castle, and nothing more.

The goal is to identify those who would slip into armed confrontations in the Publick spaces. They are  peddling an urban myth here---it has never worked, and it's not working in the USA as we speak.

 

Again, let me sum up what I see. The presentation before the SC did not address the basics here. It was a poor, and an indirect, approach, IMO. And we seem to find Gursuch reaching out to the gun carriers... while using mother as a tool, where Scalia used hearth and home as a similar tool.

 

Share this post


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

You have claimed to be a reader of this case, Joe. Why should I have to point you to a filing from months ago?

Not really. I doubt I said that, because I just used the bibliography of the case. I only boned up on the basic patterns of the evolution of legal gun violence. There was some good reading, and more remains in a newly published book on gunz and the deep south.

It was interesting, and shows how the Beard case kind of flowed, as a cultural development, from mental frameworks like Taney's. Typically. In the nineteenth century, concealed carry was expressly verboten in the north and south. The Bliss case cited by Libertarians was stated as anathema by four different states as they incorporated the Fourteenth Amendment. 

In the twentieth century, the NRA clearly wanted only unloaded guns in cars. The violent norms of today, with loaded guns in the cars and on the streets, emerged from the NRA as a post-sixties development.

To offset my confirmation bias, I get to use Patrick Charles as a pre-organized gateway to the finest Libertarian writing, to their authority for their opinions. IMO, with some consistency, these opinions are not based on a cohesive study of history, or on the sensitive setting of the demands on the colonial militia. Abuse of context is typical. Incomplete assumptions are presented, while concurring evidence is avoided. This group of writers, after being called out, needs to behave professionally, to address the vetted history presented within Peruta II and Mcdonald.

Their position is that historians are of one voice, an idea which was decimated in a key McDonald brief.

 

Share this post


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

Here you are, lying while in the same sentence you use to accuse o9thers of lying. The transcript covers the stated position of the police department: coffee stops and pee pee breaks are not considered offenses by the police.

Unlike Dearing's statement about state law, which you now admit was a lie, my prediction about how grabby cops will behave can not be proven nor disproven at this point. It's a guess. The basis is their five years of maintaining that the now-repealed laws were necessary for public safety, something Dearing has now admitted is not true.

On 12/2/2019 at 11:38 AM, jocal505 said:

The SC had declined to proceed with this NY business. Mootness issues.

 


Posting this 30 minutes after oral arguments at the Supreme Court ended shows your real grasp of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Unlike Dearing's statement about state law, which you now admit was a lie, my prediction about how grabby cops will behave can not be proven nor disproven at this point. It's a guess. The basis is their five years of maintaining that the now-repealed laws were necessary for public safety, something Dearing has now admitted is not true.


Posting this 30 minutes after oral arguments at the Supreme Court ended shows your real grasp of the facts.

I am starved for nitwit content, can you help me out?

Lay out a nitwit's talking point for us, about indoor militias, several times a week, on and off, for years. Or maybe post a flower in a gun, for the umpteenth time, like a known nitwit. How about two dogball rifles on a blankie, repeated kinda nitwit-like? My faviorite nitwit performance is the nitwit who reads the hell out of Miller, brags about it...and reports the Miller case law dishonestly. Can you  do them all in the same day?

Share this post


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

Lay out a nitwit's talking point for us

I thought I already did, but here it is again.

On 12/2/2019 at 11:38 AM, jocal505 said:

The SC had declined to proceed with this NY business. Mootness issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I thought I already did, but here it is again.

 

So sorry, dogballs. Thanks for the correction. (If you are a cheap little guy you can exploit the error, due to lack of solid content.)  I was flying out the door, and my wife gave me some bunk info. 

The presentation before the SC was lightweight. The hammer did not even strike the nail.

 

Share this post


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

So sorry, dogballs. Thanks for the correction. (If you are a cheap little guy you can exploit the error, due to lack of solid content.)  I was flying out the door, and my wife gave me some bunk info. 

Readers have known for a couple of months when oral arguments would happen and we've known that the mootness issue was not decided.

You even replied to a (presumably unread) post on the subject in October.

On 10/9/2019 at 8:11 PM, jocal505 said:
On 10/7/2019 at 5:01 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

SCOTUS had a conference this morning and...

Oct 07 2019  The Respondent's Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

And if denied again, they should be prepared to discuss indoor militias. And to be laughed at.

The ninth circuit was laughing when they sent Scot Peruta home to San Diego, without any outdoor gun. They were chuckling away, because they had discovered that neither CC nor OC  has legal precedent in common law. No reversal happened.

Larry Pratt's POV meant nothing to them.


Blaming your wife for your own failure to read before replying really makes me want to take advice on "class" from you.

Share this post


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

Readers have known for a couple of months when oral arguments would happen and we've known that the mootness issue was not decided.

You even replied to a (presumably unread) post on the subject in October.


Blaming your wife for your own failure to read before replying really makes me want to take advice on "class" from you.

You asked, twice, so I let you know what happened. Dogballs, try to stay on track.

You just flicked to a personal attack, after a lackluster performance before the SC. We waited ten years to find nuances about how to go pee pee in NY, and how not to visit our mother in NY? This is the great Paul Clement? This is supposed to deal with the matter of the new outdoor gun confrontations?

Stay with us now. Tell us about the storage of the firepower in the colonies: tell us why the transcript described the sweeping setup for the militia's gunz in Boston--an armory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for placing this here, I didn't want to wade through the muck of our gun threads to find the proper spot;

 

HPD chief Acevedo calls out McConnell, Cornyn, Cruz by name, urging them to pass Violence Against Women act.

"And who killed our Sgt? A boyfriend abusing his girlfriend. So you're either here for women and children [daughters, sisters] and our aunts, or you're here for the NRA."

 
Embedded video

Share this post


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

Violence Against Women act

I guess this law declares murder illegal? Are you going to tell us how this bill would of stopped this crime, or were you just looking to post more "nra bad" nonsense?

If the house really wanted to pass it, they would. I guess they feel that it really isn't important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I guess this law declares murder illegal? Are you going to tell us how this bill would of stopped this crime, or were you just looking to post more "nra bad" nonsense?

If the house really wanted to pass it, they would. I guess they feel that it really isn't important.

The Police Chief and brass of America's fourth-largest city know what they're talking about. You might pay attention for once. McConnell, John Cornyn, Ted Cruz are Senators, and part of the government unit holding up almost all legislation. The National Russian Association are happy contributors to the mess called the United States Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 12/6/2019 at 6:00 PM, jocal505 said:

Your actual goal goes directly to outdoor gun rights, which do not exist, and have never existed.

THE BRITISH ARE COMING, THE BRITISH ARE COMING! 

GRAB YOUR RIFLES AND MEET INDOORS SO WE CAN RESIST THEM!

Share this post


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

Apologies for placing this here, I didn't want to wade through the muck of our gun threads to find the proper spot;

An ironic comment from someone who has started so many of our gun threads.

5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The Police Chief and brass of America's fourth-largest city know what they're talking about.

Your touching concern over violence against women must not extend to Rhogena Nicholas, or you would know better than to brag on Avecedo.

Chief Avecedo is a typical bureaucrat: lying and covering up wrongdoing by subordinates until it is no longer possible.

On 2/19/2019 at 5:17 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

The cop who lied to get the warrant has a history.
 

Quote

 

The day after the January 28 drug raid that killed a middle-aged couple and injured five undercover narcotics officers, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo lavished praise on Gerald Goines, the 34-year veteran who had been shot in the neck after breaching the door and entering the house to assist his wounded colleagues. "He's a big teddy bear," Acevedo said. "He's a big African-American, a strong ox, tough as nails, and the only thing bigger than his body, in terms of his stature, is his courage. I think God had to give him that big body to be able to contain his courage, because the man's got some tremendous courage."

Acevedo struck a different note on Friday, when he described Goines as a liar who had broken the law and embarrassed the department by inventing the heroin purchase that was the pretext for the raid, during which police killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas in their home at 7815 Harding Street.

That was last February. Now the FBI has charged Goines.

If you were wondering, since that was a "mass" shooting the relevant thread is the one on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
 
 
 
 
2
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

An ironic comment from someone who has started so many of our gun threads. You're right, next time I will just start a new thread, no sense in trying to do the right thing and look through so many useless threads.

Your touching concern over violence against women must not extend to Rhogena Nicholas, or you would know better than to brag on Avecedo. I went through 140 articles about Chief Acevedo and couldn't find anything derogatory as the Reason article you referenced. I wondered what made Tom get so excited about a police chief, usually, he is a law and order type and supports those folks. Reading further, I discovered why the man set your short and curlies on fire. He called guns a "public health menace" boy, I bet that got your goat but good.

Chief Avecedo is a typical bureaucrat: lying and covering up wrongdoing by subordinates until it is no longer possible. Chief Acevedo is not a typical bureaucrat. Texas Politifact had almost no derogatory things to say about him. He is not charged with a crime in the matter of his officer who shot two people.

That was last February. Now the FBI has charged Goines. Goines should be charged as any LEO who gets caught doing something criminal.

If you were wondering, since that was a "mass" shooting the relevant thread is the one on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's). This line made me chuckle, are you trying to say we actually have relevance in our gun discussions?

You really should not place so much trust in Reason it is smart commentary, but often wrong and draws an incorrect conclusion too many times.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

 I went through 140 articles about Chief Acevedo and couldn't find anything derogatory as the Reason article you referenced. I wondered what made Tom get so excited about a police chief, usually, he is a law and order type and supports those folks. Reading further, I discovered why the man set your short and curlies on fire. He called guns a "public health menace" boy, I bet that got your goat but good.

No, it's the stupid drug war that brought him to my attention, not the stupid gun war. Yours is the first mention I have read about his gun comments.

Rot starts at the head.

Quote

"Previous allegations surfaced about Goines in at least two drug buys, with the officer accused of lying under oath and mishandling drug evidence, and questions arising about his use of a confidential informant," Blakinger and Barned-Smith write.

This guy was still on Acevedo's force after those issues, which might be why he thought it was OK to lie to get a warrant.

40 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You really should not place so much trust in Reason it is smart commentary, but often wrong and draws an incorrect conclusion too many times.

Whatever.

Share this post


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

Your media bias fact check does not cover its mistakes at all. Neither can you disregard who funds that magazine, The Scaife Foundation, and Koch Foundation do nothing except make it a corporate-driven propaganda outlet.

Reason Magazine is as reasonable as Fox News is fair and balanced. They do write useful articles; you have to be smart enough to see through the crap.

Share this post


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

Neither can you disregard who funds that magazine, The Scaife Foundation, and Koch Foundation

Hah! Try searching PA for the word Koch posted by me and you might realize how foolish you sound.

Reason is constantly cheering for Trump and I'm constantly posting it. Except that the "cheering" might seem a bit strange to anyone who actually reads. If you join that club you might be amused.

Share this post


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

McConnell, John Cornyn, Ted Cruz are Senators, and part of the government unit holding up almost all legislation.

The "Violence against Women Act" hasn't even been passed by the house, yet it is somehow the Senate's fault it hasn't gone anywhere?

Imagine that.

17 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The Police Chief and brass of America's fourth-largest city know what they're talking about.

I guess I'm supposed to contact them with any questions about their latest press conference then? I guess expecting you to actually back up any of the crap you post really is a bridge to far.

 

Share this post


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

Hah! Try searching PA for the word Koch posted by me and you might realize how foolish you sound.

Why would your ignorance be of any importance at all? Koch is a major sponsor of a rag you love to reference here; his influence drives that magazines thought and influences how you push it elsewhere.

Share this post


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

The "Violence against Women Act" hasn't even been passed by the house, yet it is somehow the Senate's fault it hasn't gone anywhere?

It passed the House in April of this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I guess I'm supposed to contact them with any questions about their latest press conference then? I guess expecting you to actually back up any of the crap you post really is a bridge to far.

Do whatever your curiosity drives you to do. That press conference is available on YouTube if you had the curiosity to look. Give him a call, write a letter. contact him on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Houston+Police+Chief+press+conference

Share this post


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

Do whatever your curiosity drives you to do. That press conference is available on YouTube if you had the curiosity to look. Give him a call, write a letter. contact him on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Houston+Police+Chief+press+conference

So the police are a source that can't be questioned, at least if the topic is banning guns?

It isn't like this holier then thou police chief might be trying to push investigations into his officers off the front page or anything like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

 

It isn't like this holier then thou police chief might be trying to push investigations into his officers off the front page or anything like that.

 

it definitely isn't because cops keep getting murdered.  after all, that just didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

So the police are a source that can't be questioned, at least if the topic is banning guns?

It isn't like this holier then thou police chief might be trying to push investigations into his officers off the front page or anything like that.

 

Of course, they can be questioned, you just might not get an answer.

He may be trying to do that, big-city politics is a tough business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:
11 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Hah! Try searching PA for the word Koch posted by me and you might realize how foolish you sound.

Why would your ignorance be of any importance at all? Koch is a major sponsor of a rag you love to reference here; his influence drives that magazines thought and influences how you push it elsewhere.

Heh. You're willfully ignorant of the fact that I reference Koch $pon$or$hip of "Trump cheerleading" all the time, yet expect me to believe you read 140 sources AND you know what I do "elsewhere."

 

9 hours ago, badlatitude said:

He may be trying to do that, big-city politics is a tough business. 

That may be why NYC has worked so hard to restrict the movements of the few people who can afford to exercise their rights.

Not that there's anything racist or regressive about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Heh. You're willfully ignorant of the fact that I reference Koch $pon$or$hip of "Trump cheerleading" all the time, yet expect me to believe you read 140 sources AND you know what I do "elsewhere."

 

That may be why NYC has worked so hard to restrict the movements of the few people who can afford to exercise their rights.

Not that there's anything racist or regressive about that. 

 

badlat got you all worked up, about your daily Koch propaganda, and about dead cops on DV calls.

Do you find anything racist or regressive about this?

Quote

 

 

dogballs to sailors after streaming reason.com:

 

Search > Dred > Tom Ray,  reflections in the year 2019

 

  1. ...people likeDred Scott. Assuming gun rights for some does not exclude them for the rest, much as you might wish it did.May 20, 2018
  2. TheDred Scott case was well before 1974 and said that citizens could keep and carry arms wherever they went. Just because you don't read the cases you like to discuss doesn't mean the rest of us join you in your ignorance.October 30
  3. ...fromDred Scott to Jack Miller to Dick Heller and then Otis McDonald, none of the people whose gun rights have been discussed by the Supreme Court were in an organized militia unit at the time. Possibly because "the people" meant and means "the people." I don't see how that's inconsistent with...October 9
  4. ...I have agreed that the result inDred Scott is but that avoids my question. Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? The question can have an answer whether you agree with the bolded part or not. Where did it come from?August 15
  5. ...as the Beard andDred Scott cases, among others, have shown over and over.August 8
  6. ...why do you suppose the Supreme Court thought it applied to Jack Miller and could apply toDred Scott if they were not in any militia? I think it's because they're "the people." You know, like illegal immigrants.August 7
  7. ...racist application of laws to either of them would be as wrong as it was with MLK orDred Scott.July 15
  8. ...And why useDred Scott's picture? Do you enjoy reliving the glory days when blacks could not be considered citizens because June 14
  9. ...The reason was the same one that SCOTUS used to denyDred Scott the right to keep and carry arms wherever he went. Bull Gator, I hope you appreciate my effort to split this up into several posts over multiple days.June 6
  10. ...Also notable in his absence:Dred Scott and what the Supreme Court had to say about why black people could not be full citizens. I can see why this guy is jocal's favorite cherry picker. Leaves those bad ones for the squirrels.May 31
  11. ...I'll take a wild guess that you might be talking about decisions likeDred Scott v Sanford. Or, as my elk call it, The big problem with recognizing black people as citizens was: None of which seem to be problems to me. Not even that last one. But I'm not sure what this...May 17
  12. ...I'd suggest starting with what the Supreme Court had to say on the issue when it came toDred Scott and then work forward toward the present day.April 15
  13. ...Even the minority agreed: That's why Justice Taney was worried so many years ago thatDred Scott might be able to "keep and carry arms" if he were considered a citizen. Our Supreme Court knew in 1856 what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" meant to him.March 27
  14. ...it's hard to explain what Justice Taney had to say aboutDred Scott being able to "keep and carry arms" or to explain why they heard Jack Miller's case in the first place. Those are a couple of reasons Lawrence Tribe rejected that idea before the Supreme Court did.March 22
  15. ..Or possiblyDred Scott? Catch up. Lawrence Tribe figured out that "the people" means "the people" before the Supreme Court did in the case of noted militiaman Dick Heller and his 9 round revolver.March 22

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. Scary black rifles outdoors in NY.

Orthodox Jews Open Carry AR Rifles After Anti-Semitic Attacks

Quote

Some members of New York’s Orthodox Jewish community were seen open carrying AR rifles at a community event on Sunday, a day after a man attacked a rabbi’s home with a machete, sending five people to the hospital with injuries.

EM-9zcqWsAA6e3o?format=jpg&name=large

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun applications surge in Rockland County after Hanukkah stabbings
 

Quote

 

...Erik Melanson, owner of Precision Gunsmiths in nearby Valley Cottage, says business has been booming, with the Monsey violence and other anti-Semitic attacks a constant topic of discussion as Glocks and SIG Sauers fly off the shelf.

“A lot of people are worried, especially the large Hasidic and Jewish community in Rockland County,” said Melanson, who is Jewish. “I have had rabbis come in. Some of the rabbis already have concealed carry” permits.

The tattooed gun-shop owner proudly sports his own pistol engraved with a Star of David and the words, “The Hebrew Hammer,” on the slide.

...

 

:lol:

Share this post


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

paging @Shootist Jeff

Quote
On 10/28/2018 at 10:40 AM, Raz'r said:

The only certainty? Gun Nutz will use the killing of 11 Jews using the handy dandy AR15 as a reason to call for more gunZ and more Republicunts. And it will work.

(Shoot'emup Jeffie) Posted October 28, 2018

You LIE! 

Name one person here who has called for moar gunz as an answer to these tragedies.  Suchacunt!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate Bill S7065
 

Quote

 

2019-2020 Legislative Session

Requires a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun to submit to a mental health evaluation

...

to require that before any sale, exchange, or disposal of a firearm, rifle or shotgun at a gun show, by a federally licensed dealer or private sale, including when such sale, exchange or disposal is between immediate family members, a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun shall submit to a mental health evaluation and provide the seller with proof of his or her approval to purchase such firearm, rifle or shotgun pursuant to mental hygiene law section 7.09 (1).

Section 2a is added: Before any sale, exchange, or disposal pursuant to this article, a purchaser of any firearm, rifle or shotgun shall submit to a mental health evaluation and provide the seller with proof of his or her approval to purchase such firearm, rifle or shotgun pursuant to subdivision (m) of section 7.09 of the mental hygiene law.

Section 3 amends section 7.09 of the mental hygiene law by adding a new subdivision (1) to require the commissioner of mental health to establish within the office of mental health an administrative process for the mental health evaluation of any individual prior to such individual's purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The commissioner shall promulgate regulations which shall include, but not be limited to, provisions relating to mental health professionals approved to perform the evaluation; the process for evaluation; and the development of a standardized form to be used by mental health professionals performing such evaluation to approve or deny an individual for purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

 

This is an idea that needs to be applied more broadly.

If people had to pay money and pass a mental health evaluation prior to voting, we'd probably have fewer crazy politicians.

Of course, some would argue that making the exercise of rights more difficult and expensive for questionable reasons is a bad idea. But they'd never make that argument about second amendment rights because TeamD!

Share this post


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

Senate Bill S7065
 

This is an idea that needs to be applied more broadly.

If people had to pay money and pass a mental health evaluation prior to voting, we'd probably have fewer crazy politicians.

Of course, some would argue that making the exercise of rights more difficult and expensive for questionable reasons is a bad idea. 

Oh, dogballs has a zinger this morning. Hi there dogballs, how's it hangin'?

Quote

But they'd never make that argument about second amendment rights because TeamD!

The zinger, about a mental health check being needed to vote, is subtly based on hyperbole, upon what is a straw man, the Hellerized indoor gun "rights", fabricated ~2008. 

The history these "rights" were established upon, within said Heller case, was a sloppy, very poor account of history. Hmmm, dogballs leaves the "Standard Model" (of his Libertarian writers) kinda dangling, sans any discussion. 

This dogballs is the guy who has frequent indoor militia complaints, since his Heller foundation stops well short of granting outdoor gun rights.

Why did Heller stop there? Because first off, outdoor gun rights are nil. And secondly, much of the dogballs logic (and gun behavior) leads directly to escalated, lethal violence. Same ol' since 1325.

                  Guns as smut, Defending the Home-Bound Second Amendment  Darrel Miller   76 pages

 

Hmmm, our dear dogballs even offers dark money. Dogballs has an empty zinger, and a package program.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 1/21/2020 at 6:27 PM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Black Guns Matter isn't a scary or nutty group, just a civil rights group.

They filed a thoughtful amicus brief on how gun laws affect minorities in the recently=argued NYC Supreme Court case.

On 5/20/2019 at 7:12 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
On 5/16/2019 at 7:34 AM, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

STATEMENT OF INTERESTOF AMICUS CURIA

Black Guns Matter is a Limited Liability Company established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Black Guns Matter educates people in urban communities on their Second Amendment rights and responsibilities through firearms training and education.

Uh oh. We have some people who are all about the rights of urban people. Just not THAT right.

Quote

Residents of New York City may obtain a premises permit that allows them to defend themselves in the home, but nowhere else. A man going to the local grocery store can’t use a gun to defend himself from an attacker for the simple reason that he is not permitted to bring his gun outside his home and to the store. The City will permit him to defend himself if the perpetrator follows him home and forces his way into the home. A woman cannot use a gun to defend herself from a dark alley rapist for the simple reason that she is not permitted to bring her gun on the streets of Manhattan. The City only gives her the ability to use a gun to protect herself from a rapist that breaks into her home.

Her Body, Her Choice, just not that one. Nor her choice to use a non-lethal alternative tool.

Quote

The Colt 1911 is so named because it was adopted in 1911, over 100 years ago. The AK-47 is so named from it’s year of adoption.

I didn't know that about the AK, but do know that the possessive of "it" is its. "The AK-47 is so named from it is year of adoption" makes a whole lot less sense when you unwind the contraction "it's."

Quote

This law abiding resident must articulate a credible fear that going out in public unarmed may cause him injury. Thiscredible fear is then weighed against the government’s public safety interest. The applicant can not state a general fear of injury, but the government can speculate that the applicant, a law abiding citizen with no criminal history, may spontaneously pull out his gun and start shooting people, and determine that this risk to public safety outweighs the individual’s right to self-defense.“

That should actually go in the thread about how people need a "good and substantial reason" to have their rights.

The "substance" of the government's speculation about how licensed permit holders with locked weapons in their cars might go on a rampage is pretty thin, which is why the gungrabby groups are writing amicus briefs "in support of neither party." If you support a party, you're going to need to articulate their argument. No one wants to be laughed at that badly, but someone will have to this fall in front of the court.

I expect mirth.
 

Quote

 

III.WHERE SELF-DEFENSE IS ACUTE

This Court struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.570 (2008) the absolute prohibition on an entire class of “arms” in the home, the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute.The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in a study published at https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44 (last visited 5/10/19), found that more than two thirds of violent victimizations occur outside the home. Although the need for self-defense may be “most acute” in the home, the probability of becoming  the  victim  of  a  violent  crime  more  than doubles   when   one   leaves   the   home.   Although “Outside the home, society typically relies on police officers,  security  guards,  and  the  watchful  eyes  of concerned  citizens  to  mitigate  threats.” Gould  v.Morgan,907  F.3d at  671,  it  is  apparent  from  the doubling   of crime   rate   outside   the   home,   that something more than relying on the police is needed.

 

Lots of briefs for both sides describe the "absolute prohibition" that was in place in DC prior to Heller.

Except there was no such absolute prohibition. There were still a few people alive who had registered guns before the registry was closed and the government was still waiting for them to die in order to make the ban "absolute." They didn't quite die in time. This approach is really not so STOOPID, though billy backstay described it that way. Gun owners, unfortunately, react a lot more calmly to a delayed confiscation program than one like in Jersey or California where the confiscation is to occur during the life of the current owner.

In any case, I'm glad to see this brief point out a good and substantial reason why self-defense might just be required even in places outside the home.

 

Bullshit, dogballs. You whipped this out of the ghost database, quite unread. There is nothing thoughtful in it. This is the very meme, you poser. 

Quote

Bringing the handgun to the place where one is more likely to need it is not protected by the core. Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from being able to defend themselves from violent criminals in the places where those violent crimes are most likely to occur.

This org is full of the duh, but is still a cut above your elk.

  • They are short of any proof about the public safety being enhanced by outdoor guns. (ergo NOT VERY THOUGHTFUL).
  • They recognize,  then document, the lack of outdoor gun rights in that district.
  • They are superior to your personal elk, in that no race card is being played, for eight pages.

Get back to us after you read it, but I found no "thoughtful" bits, at all.


Dimwit.

Share this post


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


Dimwit.

My hacker scholarship bits and my single digit IQ are mere straw men. But I now retract the idea you didn't read the thing.

And so I persist: show me any clever, new, or "thoughtful" angle of this brief. It sounds like NGS wrote it.

 

My congratulations, however, for sporting the race-baiter-free material, of the Black Guns Matter Org.

Quote

let's play THE WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  9. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  10. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  11. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  12. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Share this post


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

A woman cannot use a gun to defend herself from a dark alley rapist...

PANIC, from a dogballs law brief.

 

20 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

credible fear

 

20 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Thiscredible fear

 

21 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

a general fear of injury

 

23 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

it  is  apparent  from  the doubling   of crime   rate   outside   the   home,   that something more than relying on the police is needed.

 

Dogballs. Like I said before you bumped to this thread, this is not a thoughtful law brief, from "Black Guns Matter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Kinda like all this “libertarian” arguments that were just an excuse to fuck people over harder? Like “states rights”? I’d go on a longer list, but y’all don’t really do anything except snipe from the sidelines like teenagers... and lie.


So the states rights arguments put forth by grabbers in the recent NYC Supreme Court case were... what?

 

Share this post


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


So the states rights arguments put forth by grabbers in the recent NYC Supreme Court case were... what?

 

It is acceptable for (D) party faithful to say or do anything when it comes to the sacrament of "guns only for the government".

Share this post


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

States' rights are only for when the state agrees with Republicans or NYC grabbers.

Fixerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some world class evasion is in order when asked whether fees in the hundreds of dollars for the exercise of rights are OK.
 

Quote

 

Last week, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform conducted a hearing that purported to examine the history and current state of voting rights in America. Witnesses testified that Texas’s free voter ID cards, for example, are too burdensome on the poor and on minority communities, particularly blacks.

If free voter IDs create such a hardship, why don’t we hear more complaints about the various fees and expensive IDs that are required to own a gun and pass a background check?

Until 2017, it cost $140 to obtain a concealed handgun permit in Texas. In Washington, DC, it costs $125 for a background check to buy a gun. A firearm license adds $75, and registering a gun adds $13. Want a permit to be able to carry your gun? Add another $75.

“Any law that makes it more difficult for eligible voters to vote is a problem,” witness Marcia Johnson-Blanco told the committee. But when asked if all of the firearm fees might prevent impoverished DC African Americans from legally obtaining a gun, she answered: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Diane Nash, another Democrat witness and founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), testified that free voter IDs “primarily impacted poor blacks.” But when asked about whether all of the fees for obtaining a gun in DC might stop those same people from being able to protect themselves, she demurred: “I am not sure what that would be.”

The third Democrat witness, Thomas Jenkins, gave the same answers.

 

Just don't know. Just not sure. Can't figure it out at all!

Share this post


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

Some world class evasion is in order when asked whether fees in the hundreds of dollars for the exercise of rights are OK.
 

Just don't know. Just not sure. Can't figure it out at all!

Let me help. Voting and street vengeance retribution are not the same things. That was easy.

Share this post


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

Let me help. Voting and street vengeance retribution are not the same things. That was easy.

Let me help. Voting and self defense are not the same thing. But you don't die from an inability to vote.

Share this post


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

Some world class evasion is in order when asked whether fees in the hundreds of dollars for the exercise of rights are OK.
 

Just don't know. Just not sure. Can't figure it out at all!

That's because the fees are not for the exercise of rights. The fees are for the background check.

Wasn't that easy?

Share this post


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

That's because the fees are not for the exercise of rights. The fees are for the background check.

Wasn't that easy?

Is that so? The background check is a prerequisite to the exercise of rights, so seem kind of related to me.

From the link:

Quote

In Washington, DC, it costs $125 for a background check to buy a gun. A firearm license adds $75, and registering a gun adds $13.

So "only" $125 is for the background check. The other $88 is not, it's just a financial barrier to the exercise of rights.

Share this post


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

So "only" $125 is for the background check. The other $88 is not, it's just a financial barrier to the exercise of rights.

It is a financial barrier, which keepssome guns off the streets, and some guns out of the homes (where they are the yugest problem, with both suicide and DV).

The gun problem is a mess indoors, and outdoors.

 

Share this post


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

Is that so? The background check is a prerequisite to the exercise of rights, so seem kind of related to me.

From the link:

So "only" $125 is for the background check. The other $88 is not, it's just a financial barrier to the exercise of rights.

Has SCOTUS decided which fees are permissible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Has SCOTUS decided which fees are permissible?

Not that I know of.

Which burdens on rights are acceptable to you, now that you know that's all the licensing and registration fees are?

Share this post


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

 

Which burdens on rights are acceptable to you,

for private people?

"No privately owned nuclear weapons" is totally acceptable to me.

"No rifles allowed" is not.

The line is somewhere in the middle of those two.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

for private people?

"No privately owned nuclear weapons" is totally acceptable to me.

"No rifles allowed" is not.

The line is somewhere in the middle of those two.

 

Well, we agree on those things, but I was talking about the financial burdens, not the weapons bans.

As the article noted, a free voter ID is considered an unacceptable and probably racist burden to some just because of the trouble it takes to get it. Well, OK, how about some trouble plus $88? Or in the case of NY, hundreds of dollars, as noted in an amicus brief upthread?

Share this post


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

Well, we agree on those things, but I was talking about the financial burdens, not the weapons bans.

As the article noted, a free voter ID is considered an unacceptable and probably racist burden to some just because of the trouble it takes to get it. Well, OK, how about some trouble plus $88? Or in the case of NY, hundreds of dollars, as noted in an amicus brief upthread?

voting doesn't cost anything. guns have certain value.  Therefore, some small percentage of the value of a gun should be ok. The concern is not what is an unacceptable burden for everyone with fees like this that are clearly not unconscionable - the concern is when the burden disproportionately impacts the exercise of rights.  Equal protection and all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

As the article noted, a free voter ID is considered an unacceptable and probably racist burden to some just because of the trouble it takes to get it. Well, OK, how about some trouble plus $88? Or in the case of NY, hundreds of dollars, as noted in an amicus brief upthread?

There must be something different between the right to vote and the right to bear arms.  I wonder what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

voting doesn't cost anything. guns have certain value.  Therefore, some small percentage of the value of a gun should be ok. The concern is not what is an unacceptable burden for everyone with fees like this that are clearly not unconscionable - the concern is when the burden disproportionately impacts the exercise of rights.  Equal protection and all of that.

Hundreds of bucks in the case of NY. I don't have very expensive tastes in guns, so that would mean that "some percentage" is also "around 100%."

Seems to me that fees in the hundreds will disproportionately affect poor people. And poor people are disproportionately minority people. Unequal protection for them is unconscionable. Sometimes.

46 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There must be something different between the right to vote and the right to bear arms.  I wonder what it is.

I mentioned one difference already: Voting and self defense are not the same thing. But you don't die from an inability to vote.