Sign in to follow this  
Guest One of Five

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

Recommended Posts

On 1/22/2019 at 9:18 PM, Fakenews said:

Hey dickhead this is another gun thread that you bumped from over an month ago so you could talk about dogballs. You are a sick sick person.

Even worse you a quoting your self from over a year ago.

SAD!

This is the third time in the modern era that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a second amendment case.

The case is about the NY laws that are the topic of this thread.

I can't help it that no one else is interested in how our rights fare in the courts. If someone else had brought up the case, I would have quoted him.

TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs affect the lives of gun owners and so do Supreme Court decisions on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Slate in fear of the demise of the dream of indoor militias.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/supreme-court-new-york-gun-case-heller.html

Quote

 

...on Tuesday, the court agreed to review a New York City law that limits gun owners’ ability to transport their guns outside the home. And it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

...

The case thus marks an effort to inch the Supreme Court toward establishing a right to public carry without forcing the justices to tear down hundreds of laws in a single, sweeping ruling. For a decade, gun advocates have been stymied by the language in Heller and McDonald expressly limiting the Second Amendment to firearms “in the home.” The conservative justices, however, will probably use New York State Rifle to blur that line. If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

There are good answers to these questions....

 

I can think of a couple:

1. Forcing gun owners to leave their guns in the city punishes them for voting wrong.

2. Delusional hoplophobes believe such interference with target shooters has something to do with crime.

3. It's gun control ALL gun control is common sense gun control by definition. Duh. (The duh is important there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

The Cert Petition
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

 

I wondered what a local NY'er might think about the common sense of mandating that guns be left at home when leaving city limits.
 

Quote

 

...

Instead of fighting to save American lives, politicians bend over backwards to protect the billionaire-backed gun lobby and propose measures that would actually increase gun sales, such as the incredulous proposal to arm teachers.
 

Alexandria knows that it doesn’t have to be this way. Even in the United States, cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly without running afoul of the Second Amendment. Thanks in part to New York City’s tough gun laws, gun crimes here are at historic lows. But New York – and the rest of the country – has the potential to be much safer. Alexandria believes that supporting common-sense gun legislation is necessary for any politician who claims to care about the lives of constituents. She understands that gun control can save lives and make communities and schools safer.

 

Oh. Not quite how I use "incredulous" but, it's a tough law that makes us safer without running afoul of the second amendment. Common sense, in other words, just like any gun control.

Share this post


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

4 posts in a row talking to yourself about dogballs.

Your mental health is rapidly deteriorating.

Red Flag?

It is weird that we don't have any New Yorkers who wish to speak up for their common sense gun control laws in light of my obviously insane attack.

Frenchie? Isn't Brooklyn part of the city?

And Sean? Sag Harbor is Lon Gisland, right?

hermetic? You're from around there too, right?

My prediction: during oral arguments, at least one Justice, probably Roberts, will make the whole room laugh at your gun control laws. That's how much common sense they really make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 4:44 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

My prediction: during oral arguments, at least one Justice, probably Roberts, will make the whole room laugh at your gun control laws. That's how much common sense they really make.

Fair warning, FakeNewb: there's a pretty good chance I'll return to this thread to discuss the oral arguments when they occur. Try not to be too triggered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's discussion of when the Supreme Court will hear the NYSRPA case. It will be April or October, most likely.

The timing is considered relevant because of Justice Ginsburg's health. Some gun control supporters seem to want her involved.

I think they should be careful what they wish for. She's not stupid at all and won't buy the stupid argument being made. When an old lady who knows she's dying makes the room laugh at you, it's likely to be harsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 4:44 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

It is weird that we don't have any New Yorkers who wish to speak up for their common sense gun control laws in light of my obviously insane attack.

Frenchie? Isn't Brooklyn part of the city?

And Sean? Sag Harbor is Lon Gisland, right?

hermetic? You're from around there too, right?

My prediction: during oral arguments, at least one Justice, probably Roberts, will make the whole room laugh at your gun control laws. That's how much common sense they really make.

i don't have any guns registered in new york

Share this post


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

i don't have any guns registered in new york

And I don't have any land along the US/Mexican border but am still interested in how the law treats those who do.

Lots of men are interested in the subject of abortion for some reason.

Whether you're directly affected by the actions of your state government or not,
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

That's not an interesting question to you?

OK, it is to the Supreme Court and to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinds stopped being real interested in stupid ny laws a couple decades ago.  I pay property taxes there, but am trying to avoid the city like the plaque

the "transport" law is one of those stupid ones

Share this post


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

I kinds stopped being real interested in stupid ny laws a couple decades ago.  I pay property taxes there, but am trying to avoid the city like the plaque

the "transport" law is one of those stupid ones

Well, thanks for your thoughts. Not exactly helpful in my quest for a NY'er with whom to discuss the common sense transport laws.

(They're gun laws, so "common sense" by definition.)

I'll keep looking

Share this post


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

Sigh...

That's what the San Fran Chronicle says too.

Quote

 

...

After nearly a decade of silence on the topic, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on a gun control case with the only doubt being how far the new conservative majority will go in widening Second Amendment gun rights.

It’s an instance of opposite coasts and opposite approaches. California may be the toughest gun control state in the country with a political lineup ready to go even further. The high court, which sensed it didn’t have the votes for a change-making decision until the arrival of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is ready to go the other way.

 

Except that the Supreme Court hasn't been silent all that long and Caetano was a change-making decision.

And except that grabbers are very much the same on both coasts.

 

Quote

 

Before the court is an obscure-sounding case from New York City. On appeal is a challenge to a law that limits gun owners to taking their firearms to ranges in the five boroughs only. Transporting the weapons outside the city is restricted for safety reasons, a justification upheld by lower courts.

Control groups are worried, predicting a possible ruling to allow open and concealed carrying of weapons without restrictions.

The last major high court case in 2010 guaranteed the right to “possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.’’ It left in place some gun restrictions, though.

The pending New York case could widen this stance, saying New York gun owners are free to take their guns anywhere, a ruling that would please pistol-packing gun rights groups.

 

PANIC! For the first time ever, the Court will endorse a right that is without restrictions. This is because grabbers view not enough gun control as the same as "without restrictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy your gun at a flea market in the wild, wild south.  Many then import them to New York at a profit.  Illegally.  You can buy a gun on the streets of the ATL for less than $10.  Do you really think that is a good thing for the health of our society?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hasher said:

Buy your gun at a flea market in the wild, wild south.  Many then import them to New York at a profit.  Illegally.  You can buy a gun on the streets of the ATL for less than $10.  Do you really think that is a good thing for the health of our society?  

NY'ers violating NY law isn't really an example of the wild south, is it?

I don't believe I'd fire a gun for which I paid less than $10, if ever I encountered such a thing. But one of my rifles was originally purchased by my brother for $20 and I fail to see the problems it has created.

Here's a question for you (and SCOTUS):
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Do you think that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

Share this post


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

NY'ers violating NY laws isn't really an example of the wild south, is it?

I don't believe I'd fire a gun for which I paid less than $10, if ever I encountered such a thing. But one of my rifles was originally purchased by my brother for $20 and I fail to see the problems it has created.

Here's a question for you (and SCOTUS):
 

Do you thing that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

I don't think it would harm our society in any way.  I do believe it might be the single best thing we could do.  If you are angry with me (hypothetical) I'd rather you challenge me with your fists.  Loser buys the next beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:
6 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Do you think that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

I don't think it would harm our society in any way.  I do believe it might be the single best thing we could do.

Perhaps you should read the amicus briefs describing the harms to the target shooting and hunting communities.

I asked whether it was necessary. The "best thing" goes a bit beyond that. So why would it be so great?

5 minutes ago, hasher said:

If you are angry with me (hypothetical) I'd rather you challenge me with your fists.  Loser buys the next beer.

I have no personal quarrel with you and have observed that people who drink beer and fight tend to lead to "mass shootings" almost as often as our stupid drug war. I was last in a fight decades ago and drink a few times a year, mostly when wishes come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Perhaps you should read the amicus briefs describing the harms to the target shooting and hunting communities.

I asked whether it was necessary. The "best thing" goes a bit beyond that. So why would it be so great?

I have no personal quarrel with you and have observed that people who drink beer and fight tend to lead to "mass shootings" almost as often as our stupid drug war. I was last in a fight decades ago and drink a few times a year, mostly when wishes come true.

I grew up in a rural area.  The hunters came onto my grandfather's property without permission.  He was afraid for their animals.  I live in a big city.  The guns are common.  They keep people in trouble.  One gun was taken from the owner out of his car.  The owner died.  I don't fight.  Not with guns or fists.  I am all for you enjoying your hobby.  The deer starve to death.  We have killed their predators for economic reasons.  Go kill a dear so I don't have to deal with them as I go down the highway.  Enjoy the meat.  Target shoot.  

Share this post


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

I grew up in a rural area.  The hunters came onto my grandfather's property without permission.

If you grew up in a rural area, you should know that those trespassers are poachers, not hunters, and hunters really, really don't like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Contumacious Tom said:

If you grew up in a rural area, you should know that those trespassers are poachers, not hunters, and hunters really, really don't like them.

Call them what you will.  We de-fanged the rabbit patrol in Georgia.  God, they hated when I called them that.

Share this post


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

Call them what you will.  We de-fanged the rabbit patrol in Georgia.  God, they hated when I called them that.

I call them what the law calls them and would call the cops on them if they trespassed and poached on my property.

Rabbit patrol?

Share this post


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

I call them what the law calls them and would call the cops on them if they trespassed and poached on my property.

Rabbit patrol?

Law enforcement for the rabbits and such.  They lost their power when they misused their ability to the forfeiture of private property.  They had a lot of power in their day.  Rabbit sheriff is a good epitaph.

Share this post


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

Law enforcement for the rabbits and such.  They lost their power when they misused their ability to the forfeiture of private property.  They had a lot of power in their day.  Rabbit sheriff is a good epitaph.

Sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing details over in the asset forfeiture thread?

Game laws in most states do involve forfeiture of poachers' property that was used in the crime but I don't know if it's like the drug war, where the crime need not be proven. If only the misuse of forfeiture power in that area would result in the loss of it! Oh well, just a libertarian fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing details over in the asset forfeiture thread?

Game laws in most states do involve forfeiture of poachers' property that was used in the crime but I don't know if it's like the drug war, where the crime need not be proven. If only the misuse of forfeiture power in that area would result in the loss of it! Oh well, just a libertarian fantasy.

I replied privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:54 AM, hasher said:

Go kill a dear so I don't have to deal with them as I go down the highway.  Enjoy the meat.  Target shoot.  

I tend to target shoot in my yard but NY City residents can't do that.

Nor can they target shoot anywhere outside their district.

On 2/12/2019 at 7:34 AM, hasher said:
On 2/12/2019 at 7:30 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Do you thing that outlawing any shooting except at your local range is necessary for the health of our society?

I don't think it would harm our society in any way.  I do believe it might be the single best thing we could do.

So why would target shooting be OK, but only "the best thing we could do" if it's restricted to one local range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Gravity Knife Law Unconstitutionally Vague
 

Quote

 

The law is applied almost exclusively in New York City and nowhere else in the state. A 2014 Village Voice investigation found that between 2003 and 2013, the NYPD made 60,000 arrests for alleged gravity knife possession. Eighty-six percent of those arrested were black or Hispanic.

In 2014, a New York City man received a $7,500 settlement from the city for malicious prosecution after he was arrested for carrying a pocket knife that he'd purchased to comply with the state's confounding laws, and which the staff at the store told him was perfectly legal. The Village Voice reported in 2015 that New York City paid out nearly $350,000 in malicious prosecution settlements involving gravity knives over the previous five years.

In Cracco's case, he was returning home after work with his knife clipped to his pants pocket when he was stopped by NYPD officers.

According to the court ruling, Cracco "had owned the knife for several years and used it to open boxes, to open bottles, and when working on cars and his motorcycle. He never attempted to open the knife by attempting the wrist flick test."

Cracco alleges that the officer who arrested him tried three or four times to flick open his pocket knife before finally succeeding.

Under today's court ruling, if a police officer failed to flick open a knife on the first try, the knife would not be illegal.

"Under the old standard, in theory a police officer could attempt to open a folding knife many times, fail every time, and then on the final time, if the officer was able to, it would qualify as illegal," LaFalce says. "To say that someone could go to jail under that standard is absurd."

 

The new standard sounds only slightly less absurd to me. Flicking a knife open is a learned skill. The legality of a knife shouldn't depend on how well an officer has learned that skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Cert Petition
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

Not presented to the court, but still worth wondering about: why are hoplophobes so darn fearful that they can't tolerate a licensed, locked, and unloaded gun being carried outside city limits?

6 hours ago, Fakenews said:

This terrified man left the house with a gun in his diaper bag.  He’s dead and his daughter is scarred for life.  

2nd amendment in home only.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/us/diaper-bag-gun-death/index.html


So do you think New York is too lax in allowing unloaded, licensed, and registered guns to be taken to a single local shooting range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fakenews said:
18 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Censoring (dot) two two  is Chickenshittery  at management level

It’s a freaking hilarious way to deal with a troll spamming the board applauded by non gun nutters everywhere. 


Nah, he's right, it's chickenshittery, just like most censorship.

Share this post


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


Nah, he's right, it's chickenshittery, just like most censorship.

Well you’re the gun nut in question who was spamming the forum so your opinion is discounted.

Share this post


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

Well you’re the gun nut in question who was spamming the forum so your opinion is discounted.

You think that people don't have the right to protect themselves outside their homes - what do you think that stance does for your credibility?   Tom's pedantic, but, that doesn't invalidate his perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You think that people don't have the right to protect themselves outside their homes - what do you think that stance does for your credibility?   Tom's pedantic, but, that doesn't invalidate his perspective. 

No I don’t.

Just not with guns, machetes, brass knuckles, flame throwers, swords, KBAR’s, Tazer’s etc.

Hundreds of millions of Americans manage just fine without these instruments of death every day.  Don’t be so terrified an humorless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, Importunate Tom said:

FakeNewb, do you think New York is too lax in allowing unloaded, licensed, and registered guns to be taken to a single local shooting range?

I forgot to note that the guns are required to be locked as well.

I guess my question has already been answered:

On 4/16/2019 at 10:27 PM, Fakenews said:

2nd amendment in home only.


I haven't seen too many other complaints about how lax NYC gun laws are.

How are you supposed to get a gun home if it is not allowed to be anywhere else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2013 at 9:04 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Colorado bill passed and Magpul is leaving the state.

 

Quote

The Democratic governor defended the legislation in a press conference on Wednesday. Hickenlooper said he had found widespread support among state residents for broadening background checks, and dismissed the idea that politicians had been pressured from outside the state.

 

“This didn’t come from the White House,” Hickenlooper said.

 

...

 

Vice President Joe Biden personally lobbied lawmakers to get enough votes to get the bills through the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives in February. The measures backed by state Democrats cleared the state Senate on March 12.

 

 

I guess Hickenlooper's statement is technically true. IIRC, the Vice President's house is across the street from the White House, making him completely unrelated to the administration. You know, like Cheney.

The thread on the resulting recall elections has been archived but

NBC Did A Retrospective

Quote

The Republican and gun group-led backlash came fast and furious.

Incensed with the new laws, the National Rifle Association, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and other groups helped organize angry residents to gather enough signatures to force recall elections in the districts of two key Senate Democrats who had supported the gun control legislation.

Senate President John Morse, a former police officer representing a Colorado Springs-area district who had become a face of the bills, and Angela Giron, who represented a Pueblo-area district, were targeted.

Groups on both sides of the fight spent upwards of $3.5 million. Outside organizations were particularly aggressive: Illegal Mayors Against Guns, run by then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, spent $350,000 to help fight the recalls, while the NRA poured in $360,000 to support them.

...

Roxane White, who served as Hickenlooper's chief of staff throughout the gun control debate and recalls, said they spent "endless hours" with Republican legislators, corrections officers, families affected by gun violence and gun groups on both sides of the debate.

"I suppose in retrospect we wish we'd had even more conversations and dialogue," she told NBC News. "But minus a 26-hour day, I don't know if I think it would ever be possible. That said, we didn't anticipate the ferocity of the recalls that ensued."

Hickenlooper later expressed dismay at the divisions the bills caused, and even hinted that he may not have gone through with signing the legislation if he'd foreseen the consequences.

"If we'd known it was going to divide the state so intensely, I think we probably would've thought about it twice," he told a conference of the County Sheriffs of Colorado in June 2014.

He also apologized for not meeting with the group, which had opposed the bills, during the debate, and said he only signed the high-capacity magazine ban because a staffer had promised state lawmakers he would.

 

Darn staffers. Always dictating executive actions.

A 24 hour day allowed time to speak to noted $peaker Bloomberg, just not sheriffs in his own state.

Quote

Hickenlooper found time to talk to Bloomberg, but not the sheriffs.

 

When asked about that, he denied it.

 

When the records proved his denial was false, he says that he only meant to say that Bloomberg had not influenced him in $peaking about this issue.

 

Share this post


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

Not a whole lot of debating going on in this thread.


Nor this one. I'm still hoping to see you tear into NYC for their lax gun laws. They allow guns outside the home! As if we had outdoor militias or something!

You're not going to call out that outrage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC tries to call the whole thing off.

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

Nutterz point out the obvious

Quote

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

And yesterday, the Supreme Court went NUTZ

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of goings-on in the NYC case

Quote

 

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

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Pink Pistols*
 

Quote

 

 In 2013, the FBI reported that more than one-fifth of all hate crimes were driven by hostility based on sex-ual orientation and gender identification, which made this category of hate crimes second in prevalence only to crimes based on racism.8 The same held true in 2014.9 Federal hate crimes against the LGBT commu-nity increased 17% in 2017 over the previous year, and even that alarming figure is a gross undercount be-cause most hate crimes still go unreported.

In 2016, there were 77 reports of hate-violence- related homicides of LGBT people—the highest num-ber ever recorded and more than triple the death toll for the year before.10 “There appears to be a trend of targeting queer, bi, or gay cisgender men for violence, robbery and homicides” by setting traps for them through personal ads and online dating applications.

...

The State of New York had more of these targeted acts of terrorism than any state except Texas.

...

CONCLUSION Amicus Pink Pistols files this brief to dispel the misguided assumption that the right to bear arms is an atavistic constitutional curiosity, of interest only to gap-toothed, tobacco-chewing rednecks who have a firearms fetish or to camouflage-wearing survivalists and militia-wannabes who exhibit an adolescent fasci-nation with firepower. The right to bear arms is not about “boys and their toys.” Those caricatures are notthe face of the Second Amendment. Rather, the face of the right to bear arms is the bruised and battered visage of a transgender woman stalked by predators in the darkened streets and shad-owed corners of public spaces. It is the anxious expres-sions of lesbians and gay men departing clubs and bars late in the evening, menaced by gay-bashers with cudg-els in their hands, malice in their hearts, and sneering threats on their lips. These are the faces of the Second Amendment.

 

 

* As the footnote indicates, only one civil rights group was sufficiently concerned about the whole My Body My Choice thing when it came to self defense for those who are sexually different to help fund this Amicus Brief.

Quote

1No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part nor did such counsel or any party make a monetary contri-bution to fund this brief. Preparation and submission of this brief was funded in part by the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Giffords Law Center brief goes on and on trying to convince the court that this isn't even a second amendment issue since it's regulating behavior outside the home and everyone knows we had indoor militias.

Quote

...regulations that impose significant burdens on the core right may be subject to strict scrutiny. And even for tangentially burdensome regulations, intermedi-ate scrutiny requires a “reasonable fit” between a law’s ends and the means chosen to redress them.

Of course, they'll never see any burden as significant so there will never be a case that merits strict scrutiny.

Their argument is a meta-argument about how the case should be decided and barely touches on whether it's reasonable to have a fit at how stupid grabbers are being. The closest they came to discussing "reasonable fit" was this:

Quote

firearm technology has changed dramati-cally since 1791, and many of the salient issues in fire-arm regulation today have no historical analogs. Per-haps most notably, modern firearms are much dead-lier than their historical counterparts. Today, an indi-vidual can purchase a weapon that will enable her to fire many rounds at a high rate, while even military-grade “[f]raming-era firearms were capable of noth-ing” of the sort. Lawrence Rosenthal, The Limits of Second Amendment Originalism and the Constitu-tional Case for Gun Control, 92 WASH.U.L.REV. 1187, 1216 (2015). Or an individual may download a gun from the Internet and print it on a commercially avail-able 3D-printer. See, e.g.,James B. Jacobs & Alex Ha-berman, 3D-Printed Firearms, Do-It-Yourself Guns, & the Second Amendment, 80 LAW &CONTEMP.PROBS. 129, 137–42 (2017).Because the regulated technology itself has no historical analog, the lack of a historical analog for the regulation of that technology “indi-cate no more than the fact that no fairly analogous regulatory issue arose in the framing era.” Rosenthal, supra, at 1215. The absence of “precedent for [a par-ticular form of] state control” does not “establish that [there] is a constitutional right” to be free of such con-trol.

Or, she might purchase a non-lethal tool and decide it's Her Body, Her Choice to defend herself against an abusive man. Framing-era women had no such option but the Supreme Court unanimously found it's OK anyway. Because the Bill of Rights applies to new technology, which is something I would not have to point out in the context of any other part of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brady Bunch's argument is pretty funny if you start with the question before the court.
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

 

They launch right into:

Quote

Petitioners urge the Court to create an unprecedented and expansive rule of constitutional law enshrining a right to carry, and potentially to fire, lethal firearms in public when in armed confrontations.

Oh dear. It's as if these nutty petitioners think we had outdoor militias or something.

Quote

the Court should reaffirm the longstanding and broad power of the People, through the organs of self-government, to adopt reasonable measures to protect public safety and to safe-guard the most precious right of all—the right to live.

But we're not talking about reasonable measures. We're talking about prohibiting the transport of a gun to any place other than one local range.

Their concern for the precious right to live would seem more heartfelt if they had any respect at all for Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice.

Quote

It may be unnecessary for the Court to decide the constitutional issues at all. New York City is re-pealing the challenged regulations, which may render the case moot.

I guess that part was written before the court rejected that idea last month.

Quote

What the Framers meant by “keep and bear arms” in 1791 may be debatable, but today’s reality is not. More than 1,000,000 people have been shot in America over the past decade, of whom more than 300,000 were killed. The causes of gun violence are complex, but a considerable body of knowledge, including both expert research and common sense, suggests that one signifi-cant cause is firearms in the public sphere. Americans are increasingly demanding legislative and policy solu-tions to this crisis...

And there they go again with the self-murder statistics. Most of those people were shot by themselves. I'm not sure how often it happens in public. Certainly, if it happens on real estate that was once a school, that's an opportunity to put "school" and "shooting" in the same newspaper article and make hoplophobes crap their pants and beg for gun bans and confiscation programs. We know that happens, but how often? Are suicides really relevant to the law being challenged?

I do agree with this part of their brief:
 

Quote

 

There is a significant question whether New York City’s challenged regulations are preempted by the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA)—a provi-sion that petitioners mention as giving support to their constitutional claim (Br. 7-8, 28) but do not otherwise discuss. FOPA provides, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not oth-erwise prohibited by this chapter from trans-porting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readi-ly accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle....

18 U.S.C. § 926A (emphasis added). This provision—which expressly preempts contrary state or local law—may resolve petitioners’ concerns; it may allow peti-tioners to carry their firearms (unloaded) to their sec-ond homes and to firing ranges.

 

But it seems a little late for "oops, we were violating federal law."

At least they specifically admitted they are using self-murder stats:

Quote

If this Court addresses the constitutional issues, its Second Amendment analysis should begin with the recognition that the risks created by firearms are unique among constitutional rights in their imminent lethality.3 To be sure, in some sense all constitutional rights entail a trade-off against security. But those risks pale in comparison to the consistent, destructive power of firearms, which can be and regularly are used to kill people in seconds.4In 2017, more than 100,000 people were shot in the United States, almost 40,000 of them fatally, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

They're not specific about the fact that they're mostly talking suicides, but at least they brought it up.

Most of the rest of the brief is consistent with the concern about suicides and seems to argue the only logical thing that could cause suicidal people to use another method: gun bans and confiscation programs. Which have little to do with the law being challenged but are always a grabby goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Brief amicus curiae of Second Amendment Law Professors filed.

Another brief "in support of neither party" that seems to support NYC without wanting to touch the actual question presented.

They seem to be yuge Favre fans, engaging in extended comparison of how the 2nd amendment is treated relative to other protected rights.

They also at least try to be OK with having a gun in the home. Singular. The ONE home. They don't seem to want to discuss the fact that some plaintiffs would like to bring their guns to their OTHER home.

Fourth amendment rights apply equally in either one, and in the car in between. But not the second in the topic case. Not that it is treated any differently. Hmmm.... Seems different to me.

Quote

If the law of self-defense applies differently inside the home than out, then it is unsurprising that courts have recognized that the right to bear arms for self-defense has different dimensions at home than in public. That is far from a holding that “this individual right may be exercised only in the home.”

NYC's case is based on exercising 2nd amendment rights only in one home and at one local gun range.

They seem awfully defensive regarding the claim that the courts have treated the 2nd amendment as a second-class right.

Quote

Second, “[j]ust as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Sec-ond Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 582 (citations omitted).

Ummm... Caetano's Body, Caetano's Choice. I still maintain that there's no way a case asserting that the First or Fourth amendment does not apply to modern technology would make it to, let alone past, the Appeals Court level. And yet the 2nd was treated differently, at least until it got to the Supreme Court.

This is just a weird assertion:

Quote

There are no clear historical reference points for “ghost guns” designed to stonewall criminal investigations or technology that en-ables individuals to “print” working firearms in their homes and evade restrictions on firearms sales.

Da fuk? Americans have made guns since before we had a country and we still do. We do it with more modern technology now. Kind of like Caetano defended herself with more modern technology than was available in the 18th century. Looks like they're itching to bring that same "too modern to be covered" argument around again. And again I say this would never be considered in the context of any other protected right.
 

Quote

 

CONCLUSION

This Court should hold that the courts of appeals have identified the correct two-part framework for adju-dicating claims that the Second Amendment prohibits a law restricting the right to bear arms.

 

It's funny to me that these briefs "in support of neither party" want to talk only about how cases should be decided but do not wish to discuss the "reasonable fit" between a regulation and a legit policy goal.

Someone is going to have to get up in front of the court and make that case at oral arguments. I'm reasonably sure it will result in fits of laughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Amicus brief of UNITED STATES submitted.

The US brief broke the question into three parts:

Quote

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a handgun to a home or a shooting range outside the City violates the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

2.Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a handgun to a shooting range outside the State violates the dormant Commerce Clause.

3.Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a handgun to a shooting range outside the State violates the right to travel.


 

The brief rejects the appeals court ruling on the first two for what seem like good reasons to me. Bear means bear and discriminating against commerce in other states to protect in-state commerce has long been verboten.

On the third:

Quote

Contrary to petitioners’ contentions, however, the transport ban does not violate the unenumerated right to interstate travel. This Court has explained that a law violates this right only if it directly impairs interstate travel by imposing an obstacle to free movement across state borders. The transport ban does not directly impair interstate travel. The ban does not regulate travel as such; rather, it forbids a person to remove his firearm from his home, irrespective of whether he means to travel to another State or to do something else.

The idea seems to be: you're free to travel, just leave that second amendment back home.

I accept this about as well as I'd accept "you're free to travel, just leave that (first, fourth, any other) amendment back home."

Sorta free, not free enough for me. If we had a lawyer on the forum who was willing and able to discuss gun issues, maybe another view would appear. Lacking any such thing, you poor people are just stuck with my comments on these briefs.

On 5/9/2019 at 8:00 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Why I ignore Tom’s legal pronouncements. 


I wouldn't ignore his or CLEAN's or hasher's or any other opinions, since I come here to read them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Amicus brief of The Liberal Gun Club submitted.

 

Quote

 

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

New York City’s prohibition on transporting handguns to locations outside the City has directly impacted the Club and its members. Notably, the Club’s New York chapter—which is based out of New York City and includes members living in New Jersey, New York State, and Connecticut—has tried on several occasions to organize shooting and training activities. This has only been possible to a limited extent because the Club’s New York City members cannot bring their handguns to New Jersey or Long Island, and the members who do not live in New York City cannot bring their guns into the City. The transport ban has also prevented members of the Club from bringing their handguns with them when they come to Club events in other locations. So, for example, if a Club member wants to participate in training provided at one of the Club’s meetings, then they need to rent or borrow a gun—which is a plainly inferior alternative to practicing with one’s own gun.

 

They share my interest in being left the fuck alone by grabberz when they want to do some plinking.

From their summary:

Quote

The City’s transportation rule hopelessly fails scrutiny, because every available example of a regulatory alternative is less restrictive. There is absolutely nothing in the record that would support the conclusion that the City achieves any advantage for its citizens by taking this unduly restrictive approach—aside from the apparent “advantage” of making Second Amendment rights that much more difficult to exercise from within the five boroughs. To the contrary, even highly restrictive jurisdictions have not found any reason to take the extreme approach the City of New York has taken here. The City—having engaged in no amount of tailoring and having failed to consider less restrictive alternatives—has adopted a highly restrictive approach that burdens vast amounts of otherwise lawful conduct. This cannot survive any level of heightened scrutiny.

The part I bolded identifies the main problem here, not just an aside. Gungrabbiness is a partisan issue and that means NOTHING can go too far. Just as in places like Alabama, no restriction on abortion can go too far, and the reason is the same, though a mirror image.

If it were possible to go too far, we'd have seen liberal voices questioning the argument made in Caetano's case that technology developed since the Bill of Rights was written is not covered. But we did not and will not see such questioning because TeamD.

They go into the history of decisions about how laws that burden protected rights must be tailored and get to this:
 

Quote

 

This Court’s relatively recent decision in McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), shows the ongoing importance of the narrow tailoring considerations. There, the Court declined to apply strict scrutiny to a Massachusetts law that created a 35 foot perimeter around the entrances of clinics performing abortions because the restriction was content-neutral. Seeid. at 478-85. But even though strict scrutiny did not apply, and the government thus did not need to use the “‘least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’s interests,” the restriction still needed to be “narrowly tailored.” Id. at 486 (quotingWard v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798 (1989)). And specifically, the requirement of narrow tailoring meant that the law could not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Id. (quotingWard, 491 U.S. at 799). The decision in McCullen is also instructive for how it answered the narrow tailoring question. To determine whether the law went too far, the Court looked first to the scheme that had previously been in place and compared the extent that either approach impacted both individuals’ rights (free expression) and the governmental interests (public safety and access to healthcare). See id. at 487-90.

The Court then considered other states’ laws, finding it significant that “no other State [had] a law that creates fixed buffer zones around abortion clinics,” although there were some localities that did. See id. at 490 & n.6. The Court next looked at other Massachusetts laws, as well as federal laws and some local laws, to find additional regulatory alternatives. See id. at 490-93. Notably, New York City’s restriction was both smaller (15 feet) and more circumscribed in that it prohibited “follow[ing] and harass[ing]” within the perimeter, not just “standing.” See id. at 491 (quoting N.Y.C.ADMIN.CODE §8-803(a)(3)). All of this led to the conclusion that the 35 foot buffer was unconstitutional because it “burden[ed] substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.” Id. at 490.

We thus see that in the framework of means-end scrutiny, the question of tailoring—whether the government’s action, otherwise justifiable, goes further than necessary—is literally half of the analysis. Indeed, this Court has imposed narrow drawing and tailoring requirements since well before it began requiring “important” and “compelling” governmental interests. Yet, the court below, as well as several other Courts of Appeals, have utterly failed to consider it when the Second Amendment was at issue.

 

So they understand that the way one right is treated affects how others will be treated. Presumably, they're Favre fans.

Summarizing the general disrespect that several appeals courts have shown for this one part of the Bill of Rights, they say:

Quote

in many of the Courts of Appeals, including the court below, this is just about exactly how things have worked out: Courts have used a framework of scrutiny that begins and ends with the question of whether a burden appears to have some connection to public safety, without any consideration of whether it is tailored or unduly restrictive, and without the required consideration of alternative means. This untailored approach results in the rubber-stamp approval of virtually any and every restriction on guns. The court below, for example, had little difficulty concluding that the transport ban “seeks to protect public safety and prevent crime, and ‘New York has substantial, indeed compelling, governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention.’” Pet. App. 25-26 (quoting Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 97 (2d Cir. 2012)). Anecdotal supposition about road rage and “stressful situations” was a sufficient public harm. See id. at 26. The transport ban served the City’s interest in “regulating and minimizing the instances of unlicensed transport of firearms on city streets.” Id. at 28. And was it narrowly tailored? Quoting Second Circuit precedent, the court below expressly rejected that requirement, holding, “we need not ensure that the statute is narrowly tailored or the least restrictive available means to serve the stated governmental interest.”

A shorter summary leads to the same end: any burden is good because TeamD. Being the Liberal Gun Club, they don't want to put it as bluntly as I did, but that's the problem in the gun debate. No matter how far grabbers go in restricting the types of guns we can own and what we can do with them, it's never far enough because you can never punish gun owners enough for their likelihood of voting TeamR. Or worse, TeamL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Brief amicus curiae of Second Amendment Law Professors filed.

They point out that strict scrutiny is applied to other rights but has never been applied to the second amendment by any court. No such thing as a burden that is severe enough.

Quote

Despite acknowledging that strict scrutiny is theoretically available, no circuit court has ever held that strict scrutiny is appropriate for the Second Amend-ment. Instead, many courts apply a feeble, watered-down version of intermediate scrutiny by discarding virtu-ally all the requirements mandated by this Court. In the feeble scrutiny, the government is not required to produce substantial evidence, to overcome rebuttal evidence, to consider substantially less burdensome alternatives, or to not suppress protected conduct in the same proportion as secondary effects. Nor does the gov-ernment have to prove that the objective would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. After removing this Court’s heightened scrutiny requirements, courts merely decide whether the right is burdened disproportionately to the government’s public safety interest—precisely the type of freestand-ing interest-balancing this Court rejected in Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. An increasing number of opinions apply rational basis review to the Second Amendment, despite this Court’s express disapproval of rational basis in Heller. The above problems are manifest in the opinion below, and in many other cases. Some courts admit that they single out the Second Amendment for spe-cially unfavorable treatment, offering justifications that this Court has rejected.

That's true IMO and is the reason several of the amicus briefs "in support of neither party" seem so defensive on the subject of scrutiny.

They also say plinking for fun should be a protected activity, much like reading books for fun.

Quote

 

3. Target shooting is protected by the Second Amendment.

The Second Circuit opined that target shooting is protected only to the extent necessary for defensive gun use in the home. NYSRPA II, 883 F.3d at 58–59. To the contrary, this Court has made clear that recreational firearms use is part of the Second Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right to read books just for fun, even though serious reading about public affairs is more important. The same is true for lawful recreational use of firearms.


 

 

Share this post


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

Who's that?
 

Quote

 

INTERESTS OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

George K. Young is a native of the State of Hawaii,a United States citizen, and a Vietnam veteran. For more than ten years, he has been repeatedly denied his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in his home state of Hawaii. After being summarily dismissed three times in the district court, Mr. Young obtained pro bono counsel and prevailed in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit then agreed to hear the case en banc upon Hawaii’s request, vacated the panel decision and has now stayed his case pending the resolution of this case. Mr. Young writes this Court toask that it once and for all instruct the lower courts to cease treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.

 

The main point his brief makes is that he is really not a particularly terrifying guy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 5:30 AM, Importunate Tom said:

The Cert Petition
 

Quote

 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

SCREEEEEEEEECH!!!

Share this post


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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This brief proceeds in four parts. Part I explains the background of New York City’s licensing scheme. Part II argues that New York City’s restrictions on transporting handguns violates the Second Amendment. Part III argues that New York City’s restrictions also violate the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act. Finally, Part IV identifies state-law concerns with the remedy that New York City is pursuing and explains how the Court can appropriately fashion Petitioners’ relief under New York law.

Interesting turn of the order of arguments there.

The amici who write "in support of neither party" (and who clearly support NYC) also argue that the city is violating the FOPA, so at least they agree on that point. They're hoping that SCOTUS says so and stops there, not reaching the prior argument about constitutionality.
 

Quote

 

The problem that New York City is trying to address is that a carry license confers broad authority to carry a firearm “without regard to employment or place of possession.” N.Y. Penal laW § 400.00(2)(f). Using their inherent authority, license officers may restrict carry licenses to the proper cause that justified their issuance (e.g., target shooting). But violating these restrictions carries only an administrative penalty (e.g., revocation of the license), not a criminal penalty. New York City has determined that an administrative penalty is insufficient. As a result, New York City has transitioned most license holders to premises licenses. New York City then has the power to prosecute premises license holders any time they carry firearms off their own premises. N.Y. PenallaW § 400.00(17).

By the letter of state law, premises holders may not take their firearms off their property, even for target shooting. To avoid this result, New York City purports to “endorse” premises licenses for target shooting within the City limits or for hunting. These “endorsements” are not expressly provided for by state law, however, and the City’s authority to issue them is doubtful.

 

Wow, a city endorsement can change what a state law says.

Someone needs to, since the state law seems awfully darn stupid. But I'd say state legislators should change their stupid law.

A NY Appeals court thinks the current arrangement is OK.

Quote

In 2004, firearms owners challenged New York City’s authority to issue target endorsements on premises licenses. Although issued by local authorities, pistol licenses are state licenses, and state law has no provisions for “endorsements” that essentially convert premises licenses into limited carry licenses. Yet, with little analysis, a New York intermediate court upheld the regulation as an acceptable supplement to state law rather than a direct conflict with the Sullivan Act. De Illy v. Kelly, 775 N.Y.S.2d 256, 256–57 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004).

I wonder why that didn't get to a higher court?

 

Quote

The Second Circuit and the City contend that the seven ranges within the City’s boundaries satisfactorily allow licensees to train with their firearms. Ne w Yo r k State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc., 883 F.3d at 59, 61; Brief in Opp’n at 10, 19. The Second Circuit specifically noted that at least one of the seven ranges were within a “reasonable commuting distance” of each of the City’s 8.5 million residents, so this satisfied the right. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc., 883 F.3d at 61.But it is not even clear that New York City ranges are fully adequate for defensive firearm training. Westside Pistol Range, the only shooting range in Manhattan, prohibits shooting with common self-defense calibers such as a .357 magnum. Westside Rifle & Pistol Range, Westside Policies, https://westsidepistolrange.com/westside-policies/

I was curious and went to see what the rules at Westside are.

Quote

 

Basic Rules:

  • Standard pistol calibers only ([censored on Sailing Anarchy], .38, 9MM, .40, .45)
  • No magnum, steel jacket or military ammo allowed
  • Upon entering range, handguns and rifles must be unloaded with actions open
  • Keep your guns pointed in a safe direction
  • Horseplay/unsafe firearms practice is not allowed
  • Spectators are not allowed on the firing line

 

The first two don't make a lot of sense to me.

A 1911 was designed as a military weapon and typically fires .45. So... that would be "military" ammo. Yet it's among the five that are specifically allowed in the previous line.

The one mentioned in the amicus brief is the one most relevant to NYC's contention that a local range is adequate for training. I have a .357 Magnum revolver.

For those who don't know, it can also fire .38 Special ammo. Or even (possibly non-standard?) ".38 Special +P" ammo, which is the same caliber with more gunpowder. Using .38 Special, it's a LOUD gun and has some kick to it. Using .357 Magnum, it's a MUCH LOUDER gun with noticeably more kick.

In terms sailors will get, imagine you always practice with your main double reefed then fly the whole thing on race day. You might just learn that practicing the same way you intend to race would have been a better plan.

The 2nd Circuit says NYC residents can engage in target shooting competitions in the city (umm... but the city won't let anyone from outside bring in a gun, so only against locals) or can go elsewhere and rent a gun.

Quote

Equally  unsatisfactory  is  the  Second  Circuit’s  suggestion that Petitioners could “utiliz[e] gun ranges or attend[] competitions outside New York City, since guns  can  be  rented  or  borrowed  at  most  such  venues  for  practical  purposes.”  New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n ,  Inc., 883 F.3d at 61. The Second Circuit provides no citation to the record for this proposition. While it is true that many commercial ranges rent firearms, not all commercial  ranges  do,7  let  alone  the  private  gun  clubs  where many such competitions are held.8 Even among the commercial ranges that rent firearms, because of concerns about  suicide  at  the  ranges,  those  ranges  increasingly  require people to come with a guest or to have a firearm already in their possession to rent a gun.9 That the Second Circuit  could  make  such  an  unsupported  evidentiary  assertion—on  summary  judgment  no  less—illustrates  a troubling trend among the lower courts of refusing to entertain Second Amendment claims with the same rigor that  they  approach  cases  involving  other  fundamental  rights.

The last sentence is a contender for "Understatement of the Decade" if you ask me.

Quote

Under Justice Breyer’s analysis in Heller, this regulation is unreasonable. Justice Breyer was willing to sustain the District’s handgun ban, in part, because “the district law prevents citizens from training with handguns within the District,” which “consists only of 61.4 square miles of urban area”; and, “adjacent States do permit the use of handguns for target practice, and those states are only a brief subway ride away.” Id . at 708. In contrast, New York’s licensing scheme specifically forecloses the ability to use handguns for target practice in adjacent cities or states—even those on the brief subway ride to New Jersey. Because this regulation bans New York citizens from training with their arms anywhere in the country, except for the 300 square miles of New York City, this regulation imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.

Whoops.

Justice Breyer is funny. I don't mean that in any disparaging way. He's got a sense of humor and uses it. That kind of funny. I'm pretty sure someone will cause the whole room to laugh at NYC during oral arguments and I hope it's Breyer.

The brief goes on to suggest what the Supreme Court should do:

Quote

Although the issuance of extraterritorial “endorsements” creates tension with New York state law, this Court could order relief consistent with state law by ordering the New York City police to issue restricted licenses to carry pistols. A license to carry issued under subsection (f) is valid throughout New York State. N.Y. Penal laW § 400.00(2)(f), (6). The police commissioner could then use his inherent authority as a licensing officer to restrict the license to proper purposes. Thompson, 705 N.E.2d at 1201. A restricted license to carry will satisfy all the relief requested by Petitioners, and it will avoid the legal issues created by ordering the New York City police to “endorse” premises licenses in potential violation of state law.10 This is the method employed by other New York jurisdictions that want to restrict firearm licenses to target shooting and related reasons.

I doubt they'll order anything that specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Responsible gun owners should be demonstrating that they are concerned about safety in their neighbors and their community, and making whatever gun regulations -work-.


This is essentially the 2nd Circuit's argument.

"You can make this work by competing at one gun range against the same locals and getting whatever training is available/permitted at that location, or by renting guns for target competition."

It's soundly rejected by the Liberal Gun Club, among others, in their briefs on this case.

The thing about accepting "whatever" gun regulations is that any and every regulation doesn't make sense just because it was passed.

Share this post


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

With apologies in advance for more Koch-$pon$ored propaganda, of course.
 

Quote

 

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether New York City’s ban on transporting alicensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.

This brief focuses on the Second Amendment issue, because why else would the Court have taken this case?

 

They added a question. In addition to the two answers contained in the actual question the court will consider, another is provided in numerous other briefs: The Court might just decide to say, "this violates the FOPA so we don't need to look further." That is what several amici want to see happen. I don't particularly want to see it, but think it could.

The brief wanders pretty far from the question at hand in places.

Quote

The “common-use” testis similarly issue-laden. The question of whether an arm is popular seems un-related to an inquiry into whether it is constitutionally protected. It alsomakes little sense that banning a class of arms would be permissible only if Congress acted before the product took hold. SeeHeller, 554 U.S. at 721(Breyer, J.,dissenting) (“On the majority’s rea-soning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful. . . weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Con-gress will no longer possess the constitutional author-ity to do so. In essence, the majority determines what regulations are permissible by looking to see what ex-isting regulations permit.”).To put it another way, it’s not like popular or “common” speech enjoys greater First Amendment protection.

Well, yeah, but the only relevance to the case at hand is whether a handgun is protected under the second amendment. It is. Even a 9 round revolver in the censored caliber like Dick Heller went to court about.

Share this post


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

A detailed look at how lower courts have treated the second amendment.
 

Quote

 

Circuit courts have even found mere intermediate scrutiny appropriate when reviewing fees that states require be paid as a precondition to the exercise of one’s right to acquire and keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Bauer v. Becerra, 858 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2017); Kwong v. Bloomberg, 723 F.3d 160 (2nd Cir. 2013). Such fees are generally invalidated per se in the context of other rights. See, e.g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). But fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms are apparently less obnoxious according to these courts.

In sum, lower courts have gone out of their way to find dubious excuses to avoid subjecting restrictions on Second Amendment protected conduct to meaningful scrutiny. Whereas in the context of other rights, courts find “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). The Second Amendment, according to these courts, is not only hollow but casts no shadows either.

 

The circuit courts might detect a burden on 2A rights, but won't detect one the requires remedial action. The bolded part is probably why New Jersey thinks it can price poor people out of the exercise of second amendment rights.

Quote

This has resulted in courts accepting the flimsiest of evidence as satisfying the government’s burden, much like the Second Circuit’s reliance in this case on little more than a single affidavit from one officer speculating without any evidence that allowing people to take firearms out of the city might result in public safety issues like “road rage.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 883 F.3d 45, 63 (2d Cir. 2018). But, sometimes court do not even need evidence at all to defer to the government. One of the worst examples of insufficient respect applied to a Second Amendment claim did not involve application of the two-step approach—or any recognizable constitutional test, for that matter. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). Instead, that court merely complained that the challenged law concerned rifles that were not “common at the time of ratification” and lacked any “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia”—both irrelevant questions under this Court’s precedent. Compare Friedman, 784 F.3d at 410-12, withHeller 554 U.S. at 582. Then the court suggested rifles in general may not be protected under the Second Amendment, and ultimately determined that the rifles could be banned because doing so “makes the public feel safer.” Friedman, 784 F.3d at 410-12 (emphasis added). Such a feelings-based test would not even be entertained by courts in the context of other rights.

How about: you can't use medical technology for an abortion unless it was common at the time of ratification?

Your electronic records lack fourth amendment protection because they didn't exist at the time of ratification.

Antique printing presses are protected by the first, but nothing more modern is.

It's laughable. This would never be tolerated with any other right but because of the partisan TeamD gungrabby crusade, nothing can go too far. And if you think some TeamR types aren't asking that question of mine above in earnest, think again. Favre is still the best ever and the treatment of one right still affects the others.

Share this post


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

Another one that notes how various lower courts are well along in the process of rendering the second amendment meaningless for practical purposes since nothing seems to violate it.

Quote

To apply for a license, city residents must: (1) be twenty-one years of age,3N.Y. Penal Law §400.00; (2) prove good moral character, 38 R.C.N.Y. § 1-03(d)(1); (3) undergo a background investigation, id.at (d)(2); (4) prove their mental health status, or undergo a mental health investigation, id.at (d)(3); (5) prove they have not been “the subject or recipient of an order of protection or a temporary order of protection,” id.at (d)(4); and (6) hope that “no good cause exists for the denial of a license,” id.at (d)(5). Good cause is not defined.

Sounds like they check them out pretty carefully.

Quote

Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Second Circuit then foundthat New York’s licensing scheme “serves to protect the public safety of both license-holding and non-license-holding citizens of New York City.”Pet.App.26.The court relied almost exclusively on statements of the former Commander of the License Division that “premises license holders ‘are just as susceptible as anyone else to stressful situations,’ including driving situations...‘where it would be better to not have the presence of a firearm.’”

Oh. So people who have been carefully checked out are no different from the general public.

Meaning there's really no reason for all that checking, since it seems to make no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Olsonist said:
16 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

As long as they can refrain from reading the report, they have plausible deniability....  After all, who needs to read a report about a hostile foreign power interfering in our elections.  It's not like they would ever favor the non-American party.  

That and a lot of participation in the gun threads.


Talking about a pending Supreme Court case involving the Bill of Rights is bad?

I think we'd see a lot more than one post a day from one poster if SCOTUS were considering about any other part of the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HotAir and the NY Times notice something strange
 

Quote

 

Has the world gone crazy? The city of New York, which has rarely met a gun-control law it hasn’t loved, wants to repeal one. Gun owners in The Big Apple want to stop the repeal action and keep the law on the books, and are flooding the comment process in an effort to stop the city from changing the law.

What gives? In short, both sides are counting the chairs on the Supreme Court:

 

In January, the court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a New York City gun regulation. The city, fearing a loss that would endanger gun control laws across the nation, responded by moving to change the regulation. The idea was to make the case moot.

The move required seeking comments from the public, in writing and at the hearing. Gun rights advocates were not happy. …

The regulation allows residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges in the city. But it prohibits them from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when the guns are unloaded and locked in containers separate from ammunition.

The city’s proposed changes, likely to take effect in a month or so, would remove those restrictions. Whether they would also end the case is another matter.

This strategy has almost been tried before, Adam Liptak notes, and it nearly backfired when it did. When Heller was making its way up the chain to the Supreme Court, the NRA tried to get Congress to force DC to repeal the law challenged in the case. They thought the case would be a loser for gun rights and set back the case for the argument that the Second Amendment was a fully incorporated individual right. That didn’t happen, of course, but it’s a curious counterfactual to consider what would have happened had the NRA succeeded.

 

Last time it was the NRA and this time it's NYC but both times many of us saw this for what it is:

Quote

a threadbare attempt to game the system.

As for counting chairs, I count 9 and expect a result similar to the one in the Caetano case, in which the entire court rejected the idea that technology developed after 1789 is not covered by the Bill of Rights. At most there will be a dissent in part, giving different reasons that NYC can't do what it has done.

Share this post


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

Noting that historians disagree when interpreting history and that they omit stuff. For example,
 

Quote

 

Starting in the mid-1970s, the Second Amendment became a focal point for historical debate. See, e.g., Rob-ert J. Spitzer, Lost and Found: Researching the Second Amendment, 76 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 349 (2000); Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989). The debate centered on whether the Second Amendment afforded an individual civil right and, if so, exactly what individual right was pro-tected. In the course of that debate, some scholars ex-plored the history of weapons regulations. However, most research was focused on the individual right is-sue. See, e.g., David Thomas Konig, Arms and the Man: What Did the Right to “Keep” Arms Mean in the Early Republic?, 25 Law & Hist. Rev. 177 (2007); Robert H. Churchill, Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal 4 Context of the Second Amendment, 25 Law & Hist. Rev. 139 (2007).

It was not until after the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) that scholars began seriously examining the history of weapons regulations in detail.

 

Whoops, skipped a bit of history there. The part where noted constitutional scholar and gun control advocate Lawrence Tribe changed his constitutional law textbook to reflect what the Supreme Court later agreed upon unanimously in the Heller case. This:

 

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.

 

Mr. Tribe is not mentioned in this amicus brief.

Also notable in his absence: Dred Scott and what the Supreme Court had to say about why black people could not be full citizens.

Quote

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

I can see why this guy is jocal's favorite cherry picker. Leaves those bad ones for the squirrels.

Share this post


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

Tom has reached 25 posts in a row to himself in the NY dogballs thread  and is on track for 100.

Is it wrong in this instance to laugh at mental illness? 

 


Can I help it if no one wishes to discuss what the Supreme Court is up to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's down in Brazil doing that thing prohibition advocates do where they lie.

No regulation except, of course,

Quote

To apply for a license, city residents must: (1) be twenty-one years of age,3N.Y. Penal Law §400.00; (2) prove good moral character, 38 R.C.N.Y. § 1-03(d)(1); (3) undergo a background investigation, id.at (d)(2); (4) prove their mental health status, or undergo a mental health investigation, id.at (d)(3); (5) prove they have not been “the subject or recipient of an order of protection or a temporary order of protection,” id.at (d)(4); and (6) hope that “no good cause exists for the denial of a license,” id.at (d)(5). Good cause is not defined.

And machine guns are only for the rich since Saint Ronald closed the registry in 1986. In addition to the yuge pile of cash, there's a good sized pile of rules and it's a good idea to form an NFA Trust so that more than one person can legally touch the dreaded machine gun.

Anyone know how many legally owned machine guns have been used in crimes in the past couple of decades? It's a very disappointing number to those inclined to believe Obama's lie above, so will probably remain unknown by those types.

Share this post


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

The conclusion of their summary:
 

Quote

 

Because the purpose of licensing schemes is toregulate the exercise of a right, a system that satisfiesintermediate scrutiny should facilitate the right’sexercise, not discourage it. For example, a paradepermit regulates time, place, and manner to enable theparade in question, not make it so difficult that theorganizers call it off. New York City’s firearm permitsare designed to thwart the Second Amendment, notfacilitate its exercise.

This Court should reverse.

 

This goes a bit further:
 

Quote

 

The Second Circuit’s rationale for employing intermediate scrutiny here is that it characterized New York City’s law as analogous to a regulation on the time, place, or manner of speech. See Pet. App. 10–15;see also id. at 64–67 (district court opinion). This line of Second Circuit precedent—which began in earnest in 2012 and is discussed later in Part III—purports to follow this Court’s lead regarding judicial review of such content-neutral speech regulations under the First Amendment.

But that premise is false at a foundational level when the issue is correctly framed as whether a citizen can bear arms outside the home. The City’s law is not a regulation of the “time” a citizen can exercise the Second Amendment outside his home, because the City’s answer is “never.” Nor is it a regulation of the “place” where the right can be exercised outside the home, because the answer is “nowhere.” Nor is it a regulation of the “manner” of which a citizen can exercise the right to bear arms, because the answer is “none.” At bottom, after this Court settled the matter beyond dispute that a citizen can exercise the Second Amendment inside that citizen’s home, New York City has decided that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home in any meaningful sense.

 

The thread about this distortion of the 2nd amendment is over 6 years old now.

A First Amendment analogy would be arguing that because NAACP v Button was about NAACP Inc exercising its corporate first amendment rights by filing civil rights lawsuits, that is the only form of corporate expre$$ion that can ever fall under first amendment protection.

Like a lot of grabby arguments, it would never be tolerated in the context of any other part of the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 2:52 AM, Importunate Tom said:

I can see why this guy is jocal's favorite cherry picker. Leaves those bad ones for the squirrels.

On our forums in 2018, you had dozens of opportunities to intelligently challenge the specifics of the work of Patrick J. Charles. You were not up to the task.

I got up at 2AM to confront you with colonial gun confiscation, with a colonial militia held firmly in check, with militia guns arrayed in local armories on XYZ date. You would slip to the boat forums.

While Mr. Charles ripped the finest libertarian writers, by the very page number each time, you were off to the boat forums?

You offer us Dred Scott again, and race-baiting  (over guns) again? 

 

These days I have you figured as a POS character, fundamentally. As a result of that,  IMO, the libertarian slimeball bit comes naturally.

If Roger Stone is garbage then you are garbage too, my good man.

The twenty-five consecutive TR posts show that no one wants to interact with you. See ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 2:49 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 5/9/2019 at 5:00 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Why I ignore Tom’s legal pronouncements. 


I wouldn't ignore his or CLEAN's or hasher's or any other opinions, since I come here to read them.

Let's get straight on Miller, if you want us to not ignore you.

You flew the Miller flag, claiming it had to do with gun rights for the people, circa 1939.

I've asked you to clear this up. I need you to clear it up, or you are useless (ignore worthy).

Mr. Ray, is the case law in Miller about the rights of the people, or merely the rights of fighting age males?

Share this post


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

On our forums in 2018, you had dozens of opportunities to intelligently challenge the specifics of the work of Patrick J. Charles. You were not up to the task.

I got up at 2AM to confront you with colonial gun confiscation, with a colonial militia held firmly in check, with militia guns arrayed in local armories on XYZ date. You would slip to the boat forums.

While Mr. Charles ripped the finest libertarian writers, by the very page number each time, you were off to the boat forums?

You offer us Dred Scott again, and race-baiting  (over guns) again? 

 

These days I have you figured as a POS character, fundamentally. As a result of that,  IMO, the libertarian slimeball bit comes naturally.

If Roger Stone is garbage then you are garbage too, my good man.

The twenty-five consecutive TR posts show that no one wants to interact with you. See ya.

Fuck you you racist twat!  

Tom had over 25 posts talking to him self on his way to 100 and you just had to jump in and ruin it!  The rule is once Tom hits 10 posts in a row he is not to be interrupted. Learn it! live it!

Share this post


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

Mr. Ray, is the case law in Miller about the rights of the people, or merely the rights of fighting age males?

My answer is the same as always: if the Supreme Court did not think Miller was part of the people and therefore covered, they would not have heard his case.

Same is true for Heller and it may be race baiting to point it out but it's also true for Otis McDonald, who, by the way, was not Jack Miller. Nor of fighting age.

Share this post


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

Before getting to the brief, the table of authorities signals trouble ahead...
 

Quote

 

An Act for preventing Suppressing & punishing the Conspiracy & Insurrection of Negroes & other Slaves (1712), Acts of Assembly Passed in the Province of New-York, from 1691 to 1718 141 (John Baskett ed. 1719).................... 

An Act for the more Effectual Preventing & Punishing the Conspiracy & Insurrection of Negro & other Slaves (1730)...............

 

The required note on interests and funding foreshadows more trouble...

Quote

No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or inpart nor did such counsel or any party make a monetarycontribution to fund this brief. Preparation and submission of this brief was funded in part by the NRA Freedom Action Foundation. Petitioners and respondents gave blanket consent for the filing of amicus curiae briefs in this case.

It's unlikely that any other civil rights group would fund minorities who seek to exercise this particular right, so good for the NRA.

And their statement of interest kind of wanders into their summary of argument prematurely:

Quote

NAAGA’s interest in this case stems in part from the fact that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was denied to African Americans under the antebellum Slave Codes, the post-Civil War Black Codes, and the Jim Crow laws that persisted into the twentieth century. Such laws often included arbitrary prohibitions on possession of firearms with parallels to New York City’s current law. Such laws invariably discriminate against the poor and minorities. NAAGA will bring before the Court matter not brought to its attention by the parties.

This brief seems to deserve more time than I have right now so I'll return to add to Bull Gator's excitement by making another post on it later on when it's too hot outside.

Share this post


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

My answer is the same as always: if the Supreme Court did not think Miller was part of the people and therefore covered, they would not have heard his case.

Same is true for Heller and it may be race baiting to point it out but it's also true for Otis McDonald, who, by the way, was not Jack Miller. Nor of fighting age.

How dishonest.

1. You boogered Miller vs. the USA for years, on Political Anarchy. You conflated the gun right of the militia with the gun rights of "the people," ad naseum...which Miller doesn''t touch.

2. You have failed to correct this mis-representation of basic case law, by responding indirectly, repeatedly.

3.Though the Parker Case won gun rights for the people, you will not discuss that Libertarian achievement, circa 2007.

 

You are useless in a quality discussion of a central matter. Not much  content, just more gaming  of the system, I find. 

You are ignore-ready. 

Share this post


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

You are useless in a quality discussion of a central matter.

You discussed the issue for years without managing to figure out that Otis McDonald and Jack Miller are different people. Educating you on that point wasn't useful?

Had you read the opinions you discuss instead of just reading gungrabby propaganda about them, you would realize that the dissenters in the McDonald case never even brought up your ridiculous argument that the second amendment did not apply to Mr. McDonald because he was an older man and not enrolled in any militia.

He was still part of "the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 5:17 AM, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

In upholding the restriction that a handgun may not be taken out of the dwelling of a premises licensee other than to a shooting range in the City, the lower court assumed that the law restricts activity protected by the Second Amendment. New York State Rifle &Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, 883 F.3d45, 55 (2018) (“NYSRPA”). It found that strict scrutiny does not apply to the ban on transport of a handgun to a second home outside of the City. Id. at 57. The plaintiff allegedly presented no evidence of a burden to obtain a premises license for his second home and to acquire a second gun to keep there. The Second Circuit previously held that a $340 application fee for a premises license was not a significant burden. Id. at57-58 (citation omitted).2 The court did not mention the risks of leaving guns stored but unattended at vacant houses.

As noted in another thread, in the unlikely event that a person can get permission to own and carry a handgun in New Jersey, it costs $27 to do so. Apparently, too many poor people are still slipping through cracks and exercising their rights, so the Gov wants to increase the cost to $550.

Still only half a boat buck to wealthy yachtsmen, but some of those wealthy yachtsmen would no doubt comment that poor people, especially minorities, could view it as a burden on exercising their rights. I mean if we were talking about some other right, of course.

As for leaving guns at vacant vacation homes being safer for the public than allowing owners to take them home, that's just plain old stupidity. Even a good gun safe is really just a delay.

Share this post


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

As a Virginia court held, among the “numerous restrictions imposed on this class of people [free blacks] in our Statute Book, many of which are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, both of this State and of the United States,” was the restriction “upon their right to bear arms.” Aldridge v.Commonwealth, 2 Va. 447, 449 (Gen. Ct. 1824).

I tried to find that case but found only a recent one by the same name.

The briefs "in support of neither party" note without a lot of details that we have some history of very strict gun regulation.

This brief gets into the details...
 

Quote

 

It was also unlawful “for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use,or carry fire arms of any description whatever . . . .” §7, 1833 Ga. Laws 226, 228. Georgia’s high court held: “Free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 72 (1848).

Maryland made it unlawful “for any negro or mulatto . . . to keep any . . . gun, except he be a free negro or mulatto . . . .” Chap. 86, § I (1806), in 3 Laws of Maryland 297 (1811). It was unlawful “for any free negro or mulatto to go at large with any gun . . . .” § II,id. at 298. However, this did not “prevent any freenegro or mulatto from carrying a gun . . . who shall . .. have a certificate from a justice of the peace, that he is an orderly and peaceable person . . . .” Id.

That was made stricter to require a license not just to bear, but merely to keep a firearm: “No free negro shall be suffered to keep or carry a firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead,without first obtaining a license from the court of the county or corporation in which he resides . . . .” Art.66, § 73, 1 Maryland Code 464 (1860).

Delaware forbade “free negroes and free mulattoes to have, own, keep, or possess any gun [or] pistol,” except that such persons could apply to a justice of the peace for a permit to possess a gun or fowling piece, which could be granted with a finding “that the circumstances of his case justify his keeping and using a gun . . . .” Ch. 176, § 1, 8 Laws of the State of Delaware 208 (1841). The police power was said to justify restrictions such as “the prohibition of free negroes to own or have in possession fire arms or warlike instruments.” State v. Allmond, 7 Del. 612,641 (Gen. Sess. 1856).

 

And pretty well shows why the briefs "in support of neither party" steer well clear of those details. Getting into the racist roots of gun control makes them darn uncomfortable but it's hard to find any strict gun control that is not so tainted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 8:04 AM, Importunate Tom said:

More inconvenient history...

Quote

North Carolina also made it unlawful “if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword,dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county . . . .” State v.Newsom, 27 N.C. 250, 207 (1844) (Act of 1840, ch. 30). The provision was upheld as constitutional partly on the ground that “the free people of color cannot be considered as citizens . . . .” Id. at 254.

They were pretty explicit that they meant to deny both His Body, His Choice and Her Body, Her Choice when it came to self-defense.

The reason was the same one that SCOTUS used to deny Dred 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 8:04 AM, Importunate Tom said:
Quote

Somewhat bizarrely, the court further averred: “It does not deprive the free man of color of the right to carry arms about his person, but subjects it to the control of the County Court, giving them the power to say, in the exercise of a sound discretion, who, of this class of persons, shall have a right to the licence, or whether any shall.” Id. at 253. This is reminiscent of the City’s argument today that the right of the people to bear arms is not infringed by laws granting officials discretion to deny them that very right.

 

It's also more than a bit reminiscent of the sound discretion shown when Martin Luther King was denied a concealed weapons permit.

(That's five in a row, for those more interested in me than in racist discrimination against the exercise of our rights.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 2:20 AM, Importunate Tom said:

You discussed the issue for years without managing to figure out that Otis McDonald and Jack Miller are different people. Educating you on that point wasn't useful?

Had you read the opinions you discuss instead of just reading gungrabby propaganda about them, you would realize that the dissenters in the McDonald case never even brought up your ridiculous argument that the second amendment did not apply to Mr. McDonald because he was an older man and not enrolled in any militia.

He was still part of "the people."

Why the disinformation already, dogballs?  You are a Roger Stone type figure, making shit up.

You rick-rolled the link to the cover sheet of Miller, for years. I got sick of it.

Fact. You schooled me on this matter, dogballs, then forgot that. On four different threads, you got Miller right... whenever it suited you.

Quote

A 2nd Amendment Militia question
Uncooperative Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy
November 8, 2016...You always omit the part about "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." Why were they even hearing a case from a guy who was not enrolled? And why have they done it twice since? They keep making the same mistake! And the individua...

 

Liberal gun owners, if any, take note
 November 4, 2016 Uncooperative Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
...I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" described him. The way I read that, only able bodied males have the 2nd amendment rights. you don't mean THAT, do you? No more than I mean only white, land…

 

The NRA $peak$
 October 9, 2016 Uncooperative Tom replied to Uncooperative Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
...A modern interpretation would be all people physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Combining that answer with the one from post 66, the amendment covers individuals and weapons that could be useful for the common defense.

 

NSFWThe "gun culture" and the media
 March 19, 2016 Uncooperative Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy
Do you think those three men were physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense? I do. That means they're the mliitia, just like you and me. You weren't paying attention then. Again, I don't often participate in these discussions for a reason, but I have on a couple of occa…

The conversation in play is about the manipulation of the information about the real Second Amendment's intentions. And yo, we find , sadly, that you are a dynamic, daily part of that disinformation, acting for Libertarian interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 1:25 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Same is true for Heller and it may be race baiting to point it out but it's also true for Otis McDonald, who, by the way, was not Jack Miller. Nor of fighting age.

Thank you for displaying the legal pattern, the Libertarian creep we have in play.

In the Miller case in 1939, the gun rights were assumed to be militia based.

Libertarians Robert Levy and McNeely got gun rights for the people recognized in 2007, via Parker. The legal basis for this is weak, and the historical basis for it is sketchy, to be nice.

According to Robert Spitzer, Patrick Charles, and others, the MacDonald case in 2010 granted standing to the older Mr. McDonald based on the Parker Case. 

The basic problem here goes unaddressed by dogballs, every time. Military law cannot be applied to citizen gunplay. We have criminal law for that.

Quote

Robert J. Spitzer, Why History Matters  38pgs

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByoyLoSA8QKpOG10WnNDSVlGNlk/view

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites