Sign in to follow this  
Polytelum Tom

Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Recommended Posts

In the wake of the unanimous Supreme Court's decision telling Massachusetts their stun gun ban was unconstitutional, Massachusetts has done... um... nothing. They haven't changed the law and there's no chance they can enforce it.

 

Other states are reacting.

 

New Jersey may have legal stun guns soon

 

and

 

The Nawlins stun gun ban is being challenged

 

The SCOTUS opinion is remarkably short, less than two pages. They basically said, "Take your ridiculous idea that technology had to exist at the time of the nation's founding to be covered by the Bill of Rights and shove it."

 

Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote a separate concurrence that is longer. In the unlikely event he reads it, it will really make jocal's head explode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Stun Gun Ban Challenged

 

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and New York resident Matthew Avitabile have filed a federal Second Amendment civil rights lawsuit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in an effort to strike down the state’s ban on the acquisition and possession of Tasers and other nonlethal (sometimes called “less-than-lethal”) weapons.

 

Individual plaintiff Matthew Avitabile is the mayor of Middleburgh, New York and would like to buy and keep a Taser for self-defense.

 

 

I don't understand the thinking. What terrible problem is this ban trying to prevent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they are being proactive.

Maybe they don't want anyhalf-electrocuted perps arrow-hooked to any victims on a thin wire. Could be that...

 

And maybe they heard about you. If you had your way, you'd go about with a slingshot, an airsoft gun, a pellet gun, a starter's pistol, a flare fun, and stun gun. Maybe even a pop tart.

Guns r Us> You have developed a clown act in a Larry Pratt face mask, juggling all of the above, on a soapbox, while peddling trailer trash civics lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written?

No of course not. These were smart people who could see the future. They would have known that the Internet, wide spread drug problems and guns that could shoot 35 bullets a second were all coming and wrote the amendments accordingly. What they couldn't have foreseen were how many gun loving, stoners like yourself would spend so much time on the Internet claiming you knew what they were thinking. You realise that when your hero mr Trump becomes your President someone from the gun lobby will piss him off about something and because he is a ego fuelled bully, he will confiscate ever gun in the land.

 

Wait, who said that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuit Filed Against Massachusetts Stun Gun Ban

 

...The case was about a Massachusetts State law that banned the possession of electric weapons, including stun guns. The Supreme Court did not directly invalidate the Massachusetts ban. It held that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was wrong when it found that electric weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.

 

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the defendant in the case, Jaime Caetano, was formally found not guilty. The judge agreed to allow her record to be sealed, so that it would not show on a record check by a potential employer or other person. The Massachusetts ban remained on the books.

 

Now, a federal lawsuit has been filed against Massachusetts AG Maura Healy, challenging the constitutionality of the stun gun ban.

...

 

You'd think a red state would embrace non-lethal self-defense but I guess the problem is that "stun gun" has gun in the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom. I'm here to wreck your thread.

 

The Caetano case surfaced during this week's appeals court decision which upheld AW restrictions.

I have come here to see in what ways you have distorted Caetano, if any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Because this post seems to equate reasonable regulation with the confiscation I was talking about in the post to which you replied.

 

 

Of course, the odds of confiscation for the majority of CT owners of banned weapons are much lower because they didn't register them.

The supremes have found reasonable regulation is fine. Cry me a river

 

 

 

 

 

i do not equate reasonable regulation with confiscation of ALL guns. Reasonable regulation might equate with making certain guns or gun parts illegal to own.

 

No sidewinder missiles for you!

 

 

Billy has an ordinary rifle, not an air to air missile.

 

 

This is a falsehood. Billy's gun shoots twenty rounds of .223 ammo in a sustained progression.

During testing of the early models of the AR15, which shoot the same projectile, here's what they discovered...

 

P18 The military purchased AR-15's before they were named m-16's. More than 100,000 were purchased for the Army and Air Force, as AR-15's. Their introduction in Vietnam: Reports from that testing indicated that 'the very high-velocity AR-15 projectiles: had caused "amputatons of limbs, massive body wounds, and decapitations." '

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

i do not equate reasonable regulation with confiscation of ALL guns. Reasonable regulation might equate with making certain guns or gun parts illegal to own.

 

 

 

No sidewinder missiles for you!

 

 

Billy has an ordinary rifle, not an air to air missile.

 

 

This is a falsehood. Billy's gun shoots twenty rounds of .223 ammo in a sustained progression.

 

 

And my wife's Ruger 10-22 shoots 30 rounds of .22 ammo. And since it was bought in a free state, no tool is required to change magazines. It's an ordinary rifle like Billy's and you want to ban it for the same reason.

 

Because it's dangerous and unusual. Like a stun gun. Except the court said a stun gun is neither.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is virtually no difference in the behavior of a bullet fired from Billy's mini-14 and an AR15. They fire the same cartridge with the same bullets at the same speed. Pretty much any rifle round can cause the types of wounds described, but in the case of the mini-14 and an AR15, they have the exact same potential to wound in the exact same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is virtually no difference in the behavior of a bullet fired from Billy's mini-14 and an AR15. They fire the same cartridge with the same bullets at the same speed. Pretty much any rifle round can cause the types of wounds described, but in the case of the mini-14 and an AR15, they have the exact same potential to wound in the exact same way.

 

 

Billy only had to sign up to have his magazine confiscated, not the gun itself, because they're more lethal when fired from a gun with folding furniture. Billy's version, with plain wood furniture, is on the list of exemptions. Because it's all about lethality. Like orange paint on a sailboat.

 

 

 

I wonder whether Hillary will overlook Mini-14's if she succeeds in passing the mean looking weapons ban she supports?

I learned the answer to this question in another discussion today and it's yes, assuming she takes what Congressional Democrats want to offer up.

 

Text of HR 4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

 

A Mini 14 is only as dangerous as an AR-15 if it has a folding stock. Yours is on the list of specific exemptions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I get it. Wood is good as long as it is not on an AK, black plastic is fine as long as it is not a semi-auto, semi-autos are good as long as the model prefix does not start with an A and there is no pistol grip or "thing that goes up", granddads shotgun loaded with buckshot is good, tube fed .22 with 18 round capacity is a dangerous assault weapon, noise suppressors on cars mandated by law, noise suppressors on guns forbidden by law.

 

Makes about as much sense as the environmental mitigation projects they do here every time someone cuts down a swath of forest to put up more buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is virtually no ZERO difference in the behavior of a bullet fired from Billy's mini-14 and an AR15. They fire the same cartridge with the same bullets at the same speed. Pretty much any rifle round can cause the types of wounds described, but in the case of the mini-14 and an AR15, they have the exact same potential to wound in the exact same way.

 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is virtually no ZERO difference in the behavior of a bullet fired from Billy's mini-14 and an AR15. They fire the same cartridge with the same bullets at the same speed. Pretty much any rifle round can cause the types of wounds described, but in the case of the mini-14 and an AR15, they have the exact same potential to wound in the exact same way.

 

FIFY

 

 

Other intangibles enter into the amalgram. Does its LCM (absent from PA photo shots but not from Wiki) not act as a forward handle to suppress the skying of the barrel?

Is the recoil identical? I personally can't say.

The top of the Mini barrel is un-protected when hot to the touch (no barrel shroud)-- there's that difference.

Its 20 round standard capacity is more than some and less than others...

 

If the Mini 14 is the same as a black AW, then it's the same, and any outrage is overblown.

If the Mini 14 is substantially different, then I guess the white noise is worthwhile = Tom Ray for President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He still doesn't understand that .223 is a poodle shooter, and doesn't have much recoil, regardless of what gun it is shot from...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author of the Slate article in the topic link called the prosecution "inexplicable" and the behavior of government "idiotic" in this case.

 

It gets a lot easier to explain if you recognize the animus against self-defense that exists among American hoplophobes.

 

There is no such animus. You are equating self defense to being armed.

ALL unarmed people have multiple self defense mechanisms available.

 

Any animus is directed against lethal tools. And battlefield tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And gun nut fools.

Share this post


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

IIRC, the SA Gun Club hasn't had a favorable ruling since Moore vs Madigan


So clueless, yet so funny. Almost, but not quite, at a Rimas level.

Share this post


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


So clueless, yet so funny. Almost, but not quite, at a Rimas level.

You are quite superior, a ghost with a clue but without much detail. Rattle off all the recent Libertarian gun victories. Right here. Toss in an update for your major ruling in the Marianas Islands. Contrast your unprovided (but superior) list with these eight specific, and major, defeats below.

Larry Pratt is getting his wings clipped in the courts.

Quote

Kolbe vs Hogan 3/2017: AW's Not a Constitutional Right

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Publish

 

the adventures of tom ray's elk:

   WHOOPS, My Recent Court Failures    by Alan Gura

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=152016&p=5434073

 

 

Joyce in her prime.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2017 at 9:01 AM, Greever said:

He still doesn't understand that .223 is a poodle shooter, and doesn't have much recoil, regardless of what gun it is shot from...

One such "poodle shooter" shot a congressman from LA, left him crawling for the safety of the open outfield. The poodle shooter shot into his human hip.  FOUR OPERATIONS so far, Greeves, two related to infection. However small the projectile, however adamant the technical white noise, those AW wounds are over the top.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a .223, the shooter used an SKS which shoots 7.62x39 and doesn't even have a detachable magazine. It holds a whopping 10 rounds if I recall.

Try again Joe...

Share this post


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

It wasn't a .223, the shooter used an SKS which shoots 7.62x39 and doesn't even have a detachable magazine. It holds a whopping 10 rounds if I recall.

Try again Joe...

Is Rep. Scalise a fan of this round? 

Ten of these rounds is some serious gun mayhem Greeves, then re-loading is momentary. The trajectories of both bullets support my position, according to Doctors.  Both rounds create medically complicated tissue damage. You offer no benefit when choosing between two evils. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that your average deer rifle is far more devastating than an AR-15, SKS, or AK-47.

Do you propose to eliminate hunting rifles like my bolt action .30-06? (It holds 4 rounds)

Share this post


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

My point is that your average deer rifle is far more devastating than an AR-15, SKS, or AK-47.

Do you propose to eliminate hunting rifles like my bolt action .30-06? (It holds 4 rounds)

He thinks my wife's Ruger 10/22 is a "dangerous and unusual battlefield weapon" that should be banned, so take a wild guess. Lethality is the watch word. Is your gun more lethal than an ordinary .22? Then it should be banned along with ordinary .22's.

Share this post


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

He thinks my wife's Ruger 10/22 is a "dangerous and unusual battlefield weapon" that should be banned, so take a wild guess. Lethality is the watch word. Is your gun more lethal than an ordinary .22? Then it should be banned along with ordinary .22's.

In a leetle shop test, my .22 shot through three sheets of plywood and chipboard. The slug became trapped in a 3" wooden bulge.

Pooplius, does your wife's .22 not have a LCM? In the POV of the courts (not according to me, as such) your wife's gun places danger on society. Time to live with that.

Share this post


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

My point is that your average deer rifle is far more devastating than an AR-15, SKS, or AK-47.

Do you propose to eliminate hunting rifles like my bolt action .30-06? (It holds 4 rounds)

We've been good buddies so long, Greeves, why prolong this tacky argument? Let's let Scalise make the decision

Dear Mr. Scalise, yould you rather be shot by

  1. --the NATO .223 from a 30 round magazine
  2. --the 7.62 from a 10 round magazine
  3. --the 30.06 with four round magazine
  4. --none of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about your gun Joe?

Would he, or anyone else want to get shot by a .22 long rifle?

Share this post


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

How about your gun Joe?

Would he, or anyone else want to get shot by a .22 long rifle?

Joe has gone on and on about the devastating power of a .22 that was used in a crime in his state. His assault weapon is as lethal as any other battlefield weapon.

Quote

(b) A  semiautomatic  pistol,  or  a  semiautomatic,  centerfire,  or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pooplius. Your angst about .22's on our forums is now completing eight months. You offer us Libertarianism, adolescence and vapor. You won't stand behind the Libertarian history, or even acknowledge it.

I suggest that your philosophy is a bill of goods, like your researcher, John R. Lott. and your historian, Joyce Lee Malcolm. 

 

Share this post


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

How about your gun Joe?

Would he, or anyone else want to get shot by a .22 long rifle?

Good one. Let Scalise choose between my plinker and these battlefield guns.

30.06 lost favoritism with the military because their large cartridges limited the size of the desired LCM's. The 30.06 is okay for those who don't need the suppressive fire which all law-abiding homeowners need.

Share this post


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

image.thumb.png.2dd547e6375c0161781dbd850d2a3732.png

image.thumb.png.a87dba057e703460cf8932ea5f6db19e.png

image.png.98e641fc141fb23719a6129ca34afdd4.png


Sloop, the idea that the second amendment is the only one that should apply just to technology in existence at the time it was written was a ridiculous idea and I can't believe it made it all the way to the Supreme Court before being rejected unanimously.

It's still ridiculous. Spare me.

Share this post


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


Sloop, the idea that the second amendment is the only one that should apply just to technology in existence at the time it was written was a ridiculous idea and I can't believe it made it all the way to the Supreme Court before being rejected unanimously.

It's still ridiculous. Spare me.

No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  

I quite like the idea of legal stun guns myself; I have a little list of people who could serve nicely as targets. Even better, a vehicle mounted one where you could shoot the dickhead in front of you and fry all the electronics in his car. Though technically that'd be a directed EMP gun I suppose.

FKT

Share this post


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

No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  

It's relevant until repealed.

Share this post


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

It's relevant until repealed.

No Tom it is legal until repealed. Relevant and legal can be mutually exclusive.  Like the fact that you walk around with a gun when you don't need too. It's only relevance speaks to your Inadequacies as a person. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2017 at 3:27 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Dead Eye Dick to aisle six.

Bpm, this ruling is the other recent "pro-rights" victory. Why do I say that? Because Pooplius presents it as the big post-McDonald victory. I  am happy to retract when you produce an upper court victory after 2010.

You need to check it out stun gun freedom (and do a thug job on Joe. See you there. (hmmm, the ruling covers indoors only again)

Share this post


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

No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  

Understated, and keen. ^^^

I read a bunch of stuff, the actual happenings of those days, which showed the arcane frame of mind. The sources were disparate. A groove became apparent. 

Quote

written for the politics in existence

Crime and personal self-protection did not enter in within these notes and written thoughts. Nor did natives, whatsoever. Slaves were barely mentioned. How to balance federal and state use of the milita was the entire thrust, with eventual reluctant accommodations for pacifists. Standing down the feds was in play, but only by the practiced virtu of a sharp militia. The feds could stand down any insurrection, where the state militia might be questionable.

Gun confiscation by colonial authority happened at all levels without controversy. The authority to confiscate powder was cited by governors without editorial ourcry, or even comment.

Yes, LB, he gun guys have been sold a bill of goods, and they loved the presentation.

The SAF and GOA are on such a flyer,  it circles five different race courses. The RC's crash boats cannot even reach them for safety on their horizon job to nowhere. In this unsupported, convenient fantasy, get this, Jeffie thinks of himself as Paul Revere, and Tom as Publius. 

 

Share this post


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

ruling covers indoors only again

Hmm, I can't seem to find a SCOTUS decision that states this, Joe. Want to find a quote that actually states this, or are you going to just run with Henderson's dream?

 

Share this post


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

Hmm, I can't seem to find a SCOTUS decision that states this, Joe. Want to find a quote that actually states this, or are you going to just run with Henderson's dream?

 

Hi bpm. Sure, okay, I'll look for it. But this will be the third time and I don't need to spam mate. Read the threads, try using search words to pursue the topic discussions.

FULL DISCLOSURE There was a third post-MCDonald victory which Pooplius once offered. The open carry of AW's was proclaimed by a judge in the Marianas Islands. YCMTSU.

The significance is that that kinda makes her a rogue judge within the Ninth Circuit. They're not much for AW's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bpm, here I get the pleasure of hooking you up, again, with Eugene Volokh. He is the cleanest, most stalwart scholar in your camp. IMO. He is your best means to shut me up, by the way. Enjoy.

Quote

 (Caetano herself was carrying a stun gun in public, but the Massachusetts ban nor the Massachusetts high court decision distinguished home possession of a stun gun from possession in public; and though the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated that “The conduct at issue in this case falls outside the ‘core’ of the Second Amendment, insofar as the defendant was not using the stun gun to defend herself in her home,” the court categorically said that “the Second Amendment right articulated by Heller” does not “cover stun guns,” without distinguish home possession from public possession. The Caetano Supreme Court opinion thus doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/unanimous-pro-second-amendment-stun-gun-decision-from-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.73dbd2dd4d3b

 

Share this post


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

Bpm, here I get the pleasure of hooking you up, again, with Eugene Volokh. He is the cleanest, most stalwart scholar in your camp. IMO. He is your best means to shut me up, by the way. Enjoy.

I would of expected that the Caetano ruling was short enough that you wouldn't need someone to summarize it for you,

Joe.

Share this post


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

I would of expected that the Caetano ruling was short enough that you wouldn't need someone to summarize it for you,

Joe.

This is an ad hominem without comment about the quality content. Again.  As you can see, stun gun rights are not granted outdoors by Caetano. 

Bookmobile police, or what? Nibbling at my ankles agan? I dunno if I read it all, or not, who's counting?

 

Now, you and I BOTH approve of stun gun use in homes. Caetano blowback was used as a lever within Kolbe. 

Quote

If the majority were correct, then any state “would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Caetano, 136 S. Ct. 1032

 

 (Kolbrep90)“the carrying of  ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” has been prohibited as a matter of “historical tradition.” Id. at 627; see Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1028 (2016)

 

Share this post


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

Now, you and I BOTH approve of stun gun use in homes. Caetano blowback was used as a lever within Kolbe.

Oh yes, the Kolbe ruling. The one where a group of "learned" judges explained to us that technology that is over 100 years old is dangerous and unusual.

 

Share this post


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

Oh yes, the Kolbe ruling. The one where a group of "learned" judges explained to us that technology that is over 100 years old is dangerous and unusual.

 

I didn't see Kolbe coming. I couldn't believe it, especially their extension of intermediate scrutiny. What happened?

As the Fourth CIrcuit justices considered AW's, police were mowed down by AW's, TWICE. (Baton Rouge and an attack on a Dallas Police station). The judges came out swinging, eh? They were empowered by Heller. 

Share this post


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

As the Fourth CIrcuit justices considered AW's, police were mowed down by AW's, TWICE. (Baton Rouge and an attack on a Dallas Police station). The judges came out swinging, eh?

How many more times do we have to see these assault weapon tragedies before you finally give up your assault weapon, Joe?

Share this post


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

How many more times do we have to see these assault weapon tragedies before you finally give up your assault weapon, Joe?

You are losing sleep and wasting bandwidth in your dedication to openly grab guns. Mine, badlat's, wofsey's, Spatial's. What's up with that? How would this benefit you, if you don;t mind my asking? Is it just to annoy, what am I missing?

I hang onto my gun to speak as a moderate gunowner, which is what I am. You hate that; you can't let it go. Which adds value to a thing I'm pretty indifferent about. It's a dangerous, over-built indulgence on my part, a romantic need, just a good-looking symbol now, of what got screwed up from the trailer parks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FULL DISCLOSURE TO PREVENT AN ATTACK FROM DEAD EYE DICK (and to gratuitously quote Pooplius). Another major-pro-rights victory can be found in the big temporary injuction in CA.  So we now count four gun rights victories in the courts after McDonald. Am I right so far? Bueller, care to dump some cases into this conversation?

Share this post


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

FULL DISCLOSURE TO PREVENT AN ATTACK FROM DEAD EYE DICK (and to gratuitously quote Pooplius). Another major-pro-rights victory can be found in the big temporary injuction in CA.  So count four gun rights victories in the courts after McDonald. Am I right so far? Bueller, care to dump some cases into this conversation?

I tried, but it only works on people who read so obviously won't work on you.

Share this post


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

I tried, but it only works on people who read so obviously won't work on you.

If you get too silly, it's not worth reading. That would be on you. It's 2018, the mass killings have bad optics, while the courts organize a blurry stream constitutional restrictions. A pattern, with the clock ticking, and you present prolonged silliness and nonsense. Dead Eye Dick has stepped up to do your job these days.

Share this post


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

I tried, but it only works on people who read so obviously won't work on you.

What a piss-poor presentation of something you haven't bothered to say. The Dorado debate club, again. 

Share this post


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

So we now count four gun rights victories in the courts after McDonald. Am I right so far? Bueller, care to dump some cases into this conversation?

People v Chairez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so we count FIVE  pro-rights  decisions since McDonald. And four seem doggone minor.

  • Wrenn: significantly, shall issue is forced on DC, with Wrenn expecting a future review of historic CC rights, if any
  • Caetano:  indoor stun guns are good to go
  • Marianas Islands: AW's are okay there for open carry
  • California: The Big Temporary Injunction
  • People v Cairez: ??? (unknown.); a very low fanfare factor = unheralded, unannounced, , and undescribed by Pooplius. The only footnote goes to Dorado.

Share this post


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

How many more times do we have to see these assault weapon tragedies before you finally give up your assault weapon, Joe?

Give us this day our daily gungrabbing. Pooplius, begging again. ^^^  :wacko:

gruel scene, Oliver.jpeg

Share this post


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

I didn't see Kolbe coming.

Anyone who thought about Kolbe or Peruta for a minute of 2 knew what the result was going to be the minute each court decided to rehear it en banc, Joe.

Share this post


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

Marianas Islands: AW's are okay there for open carry

Is that how you would describe it, Joe?

No more ugly gun ban, no more $1000 permit, no caliber bans, no registration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpm57 said:

Is that how you would describe it, Joe?

No more ugly gun ban, no more $1000 permit, no caliber bans, no registration.

Did you celebrate? Was the party expensive? Did you drive the porcelein bus that night?

4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Anyone who thought about Kolbe or Peruta for a minute of 2 knew what the result was going to be the minute each court decided to rehear it en banc, Joe.

There is NO WAY you had that prescience. And why are you defying Pooplius Himself? He announced a mere speed bump for Peruta, mate.

Did I miss something? Dead Eye Dick did not present Kolbe on our forums, at any point. Nor did Pooplius, to be best of my recollection.

Kolbe was under my radar, but not yours? Tell us more, and provide some  links and forum comments Kolbe as it developed. Thanks.

Share this post


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

You are losing sleep and wasting bandwidth in your dedication to openly grab guns.

Joe, you post over and over that "assault weapons" are to dangerous for a civilian to own. Since there is no federal definition anymore, we can only go by how various states define them.

You have praised NJ laws before; yet you don't seem to believe in their definition of AWs - why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here I step onto the third grader trail, with trepidation. Note my sig line, this will be brief.

36 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Since there is no federal definition anymore

Four circuit courts have included definitions. There is no "definition" is gonna satisfy you, as you each froth away like the garbage disposal that is Mohammed Bin Lyin'. 

 Let the argument begin, interminably. Begin with cosmetics, go to the black on the color chart, trot out the Mini 14, have much angst in between, deny the claim of military grade specs, then confuse all .22's with trailer park brainwashing... 

You see, my brain just kinda screens out the white noise. I'M NOT IMPRESSED.  So...my pov finds peace in the Kolbe reference to amalgams, nice and vague and sinister. At other times Heller comes to my aid, the idea about most useful in military settings, which ensnared LCM's.  But trust me, this battle is not about this elusive "definition."

And now I return you willingly to all your confusion about the definition of AW. It is an amusing but boring topic for me.

Share this post


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

Anyone who thought about Kolbe or Peruta for a minute of 2 knew what the result was going to be the minute each court decided to rehear it en banc, Joe.

LMFAO!

Translation: we are dead meat if the adults get a good look at our upper court presentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 8:06 PM, bpm57 said:

Oh yes, the Kolbe ruling. The one where a group of "learned" judges explained to us that technology that is over 100 years old is dangerous and unusual.

No, it was the opposite of that. They discussed dangerous and unusual vis a vis Caetano, then announced they would abandon claims of dangerous and'or unusual, and then they said they gravitated directly to Heller: most useful in military application.

Heller has been a godsend so far.

Share this post


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

Four circuit courts have included definitions.

I see. So which one do you believe is the federal definition?

32 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You see, my brain just kinda screens out the white noise. I'M NOT IMPRESSED.

Yes, we are all aware of your ability to ignore anyone who owns AWs yet is nominally on your side.

Share this post


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

most useful in military application

And yet controllers still make the militia argument for the 2A. Maybe you should read that paragraph in Heller again.

Share this post


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

I see. So which one do you believe is the federal definition?

Amalgam time. Smell test time too. See signature line.

Share this post


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

And yet controllers still make the militia argument for the 2A. Maybe you should read that paragraph in Heller again.

This got a hearty laugh. I'm quite guilty, man. 

Look, you made militia claims, and pushed self defense buttons as well. You got greedy with both, depending. You went to strong vocabulary ("core purpose," " most acute") and created a strata of importance within the Second. And then the collective hyperbole bit you: you only get one core lawful purpose.

Kolbe cited three cases which have brought up the relativity of this *cough cough* prefatory, as opposed to operative, matter. (With another chuckle) You brought this on yourselves. celebrating Scalia's stretched,  exaggerated claims about self defense and interpersonal confrontation. This marginalized the militia thrust, didn't it?

 It was your call, as a gun culture, by political demand. You got hip for the tool of portable violence, and volunteered to be vulnerable by categorizing your militia--type claims.

 

But that was only one vulnerability. The other was the clock ticking with the popular acceptance of AW's in play. Jeffie had one in the mid-eighties. I saw one in a cheap motel in 1980.  The resulting mass shootings soon publicized the bad combination of The People and "militia" oriented weapons. 

Share this post


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

Anyone who thought about Kolbe or Peruta for a minute of 2 knew what the result was going to be the minute each court decided to rehear it en banc, Joe.

Well, you weren't here. Pooplius had a checklist, and outdoor gun rights were near or at the top. 

Tom #343

Posted February 15, 2014

He was effusive back then, surfing on the McDonald Case. He brought fanfare with Moore vs Madigan... the fucking day before Sandy Hook. Then things kinda changed.

Share this post


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

Look, you made militia claims, and pushed self defense buttons as well.

Who would of thought I was actually a lawyer who argues in front of the SC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bpm57 said:
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Look, you made militia claims, and pushed self defense buttons as well.

Who would of thought I was actually a lawyer who argues in front of the SC.

The Heller bullshit happened by popular demand. It began at the Cincinatti Revolution. Your elk made shit up about self defense, stuff beyond castle doctrine. You chanted it and marched to it until you and your elk believed it.

Scalia and Pooplius are effects, not causes. You needed their made up shit, and they came along and filled the vacuum.

Take it as a compliment. Your type of violent brilliance came well before Alan Gura's. He cashed in on it.

 

Share this post


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

It began at the Cincinatti Revolution. Your elk made shit up about self defense, stuff beyond castle doctrine.

While it's true that the plan was hatched in Cincinnati, it's more historically accurate to say it began with Beard.

Admittedly, libertarian time-travelers decided to go back to the 19th century to create that precedent in the 1970's, but since they actually traveled through time, their actions in the 19th century DID happen before the 1970's.

Share this post


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

While it's true that the plan was hatched in Cincinnati, it's more historically accurate to say it began with Beard.

Admittedly, libertarian time-travelers decided to go back to the 19th century to create that precedent in the 1970's, but since they actually traveled through time, their actions in the 19th century DID happen before the 1970's.

Pretty worthless stuff. But time travel would benefit you.

"Beard" is a cutting-edge reference, which goes straight to your vigilante rationale. Even Henry VIII, Machiavelli, and Blackstone understood matters better than you, Larry Pratt and Mr. Beard.

Share this post


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

Yes, we are all aware of your ability to ignore anyone who owns AWs yet is nominally on your side.

This would be badlat bashing. Stuff he can take from a Dead Eye Dick but not from any Obama.

Badlat aced it. I note both resignation and anger in his multiple posts. I learned a lot from his broad layout, and even from his migrating gun.

 

Tom showed me (by showing us) the mechanisms of confiscation (which are some effects). Good stuff, he is right, of course.

My $.02:

Badlat spoke, too, about the same handwriting on the same wall. He predicted the solid collapse of the acceptance of this (how can I phrase it  well?) Larry Pratt gun nonsense. BL feels your culture deserves that hit, that you've had your chance to help, and points out you'll hate the result...but that you contributed to it.

Between the lines, this man is enjoying regular shooting, using his signature applied learning curve, and expoloring the exotic technology up clo$e and per$onal. He's a fucking gun lover loving guns with big bucks, and making mature choices at the same time. 

Badlat is convinced guns are gonna have to go. He isn't pushing buttons like I am, but he sees the same handwriting on the wall as Tom does. He is sadly liquidating guns and hopefully transforming them into charity money, while speaking with others in measured tones.

 

Guns thenselves are a straw man for me. I'm about exploring non-violence, actually, and developing well-regulated citizenship. I'm about being mature with guns, I'm about defeating any dishonest propaganda surrounding them.

Hear me, Deadeye, and roam beyond the hardware here.  If mister fancypants BL had ever floated vigilante trains of thought, or insurrection mentality, or outright shitty civics, you would have seen a mature, extended kerfuffle between us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you have thoughts on whether nukes are covered by the second.

How about something more realistic?

I find the tactical nuke argument perfectly realistic as a counter to the idea technological improvements are encompassed by the Second Amendment and/or that it is intended as a means for the people to counter the government military if needed. I understand why you'd prefer that people didn't highlight those problems to your position. 

I have no problem with banning privately owned nukes but don't see how that counters the Supreme Court's unanimous conclusion about whether the second amendment covers technology that did not exist when it was written.

I also don't consider them particularly useful to counter invaders, domestic coup plotters, or the government's military so don't see how that presents any "problem with my position" either. Which position do you imagine I hold and what is/are the problems? It would be helpful if you quoted a post in which I take the position you say I hold.

Share this post


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

I have no problem with banning privately owned nukes but don't see how that counters the Supreme Court's unanimous conclusion about whether the second amendment covers technology that did not exist when it was written.

So you concede that the line between what arms the Second Amendment gives one the right to own and which ones it is reasonable to ban is arbitrary. You have argued the opposite with me in the past. Happy to hear you've changed your mind. 

 

3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It would be helpful if you quoted a post in which I take the position you say I hold.

Yes, I imagine that you having someone else dig up posts from. Years ago would be somewhat helpful in making you look a little less obsessive and borderline stalker. You'll have to find someone interested in spending more than a minute on your fixations. That's not me. 

Share this post


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

Why is the second limited to semiautomatic weapons and not anti aircraft missiles and land mines?   ...

Because they're dangerous and unusual.

You know, like stun guns.

Share this post


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

Because they're dangerous and unusual.

You know, like stun guns.

How can you have a well regulated militia if denied basic defensive weapons against a hostile military?    I suppose the citizen militias are allowed no defense against enemy tanks with reactive armor either?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lark said:

How can you have a well regulated militia if denied basic defensive weapons against a hostile military?    I suppose the citizen militias are allowed no defense against enemy tanks with reactive armor either?    

A bazooka in every home! The NRA would be all over that like flies on shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How can you have a well regulated militia if denied basic defensive weapons against a hostile military?    I suppose the citizen militias are allowed no defense against enemy tanks with reactive armor either?    

If stun guns are banned, what do you think will be the attitude toward more dangerous weapons?

Do you think stun guns are too dangerous and unusual for ordinary citizens to own?

How about the premise of the topic case, that technologies developed since the Bill of Rights was written are not covered by it? Do you agree with that idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are going to move my thoughts to this thread.    Here’s one.    You can’t have it both ways Tom.   Either we need a militia capable of stopping a military incursion, or we can revert to what the framers knew about (muzzle loaders).   The second makes no sense as implemented and needs to be modified.   My goal still isn’t no guns.   The threat is becoming real the longer we do nothing,  I can live with that.   Can you?   
   12 hours ago,  warbird said: 

The framers witnessed abusive government and foriegn invaders. They envisioned the common man to protect himself from both.

I replied:    

In that case we need land mines (cheap defensive perimeter)

anti drone missiles ($2.7 million for a launcher and 10 stinger missiles)  

and antitank weapons.  ($126k for a javelin launcher and about $80k per shot, but you need a precursor charge and second shaped explosion to penetrate modern armor)

and ASW torpedoes for your boat.   Otherwise you are just a dead tin soldier.   

Of course if you want bang for your buck, a dirty nuke is the only way to go.  You are still dead, but nobody will take your land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might need those things if the US military were attacking the population, but I'd point out that people in Afghanistan and Yemen, among other places, are giving our high tech military fits with far less. War isn't just about who has the most/bestest weapons or we'd have a fantastic record of nation building.

I'd also point out that people like yourself ignore other possibilities that may arise over the next few hundred years. Invasion is one. It happens. Collapse of our government is another. That happens too. A continental-scale national disaster like a solar storm taking out everything electrical east of the Rockies is another thing that might happen. In all of those cases, it might be nice to have a scary rifle like mine. Or a scarier one like badlat sold. It might be nicer to have an armed drone and best of all to have a carrier group, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

 

Share this post


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

but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

This is a question to be answered by yourself. Therefore, I see great bitterness in your future, unless you can nurture some TR growth. I have my lawn chair;  I'm glad you're going down.

Share this post


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

We might need those things if the US military were attacking the population, but I'd point out that people in Afghanistan and Yemen, among other places, are giving our high tech military fits with far less. War isn't just about who has the most/bestest weapons or we'd have a fantastic record of nation building.

I'd also point out that people like yourself ignore other possibilities that may arise over the next few hundred years. Invasion is one. It happens. Collapse of our government is another. That happens too. A continental-scale national disaster like a solar storm taking out everything electrical east of the Rockies is another thing that might happen. In all of those cases, it might be nice to have a scary rifle like mine. Or a scarier one like badlat sold. It might be nicer to have an armed drone and best of all to have a carrier group, but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

 

The US military could take on Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and France simultaneously.    Nothing would help a fringe group hiding in the hills survive the wrath of the federal government.   It really doesn't matter if the navy cannot dodge a tanker, unless your militia has an squadron of tankers.   It doesn't matter if the stealth bombers are vulnerable to rain, if you cannot defend yourself against a B-52.   The only reason every foreign escapade of my adult life ends in defeat or never ends is because the fringe groups never see the wrath of the US government.  The US is ordered to minimize casualties, and if possible blow something up as long as there are few US casualties.  Aside from Bush II, the US generally abides by the rules of war.   Stalin and the SS both were able to successfully fight incursions until the air war began destroying German communications and supply.   When somebody from a village blows up a bridge, kill the village.   When somebody hides in a sewer, blow up the block.    

The reality is the most incredibly fit survivalists of Kentucky (all of them) armed with every legal weapon, chemical warfare gear, IR reflective matting, entrenched bug out sights, a decade of canned goods and tanks of gasoline couldn't survive a month against the North Korean army, let alone the Kentucky national guard.    There is no military rationalization for citizen militias in the modern era.   There are legitimate uses for firearms, as I have stated in the past.  None are critical for the nation.    A few more horses and a couple ranchers will die from rattlesnake.   A couple people will be killed by wild boar.   Some dying calves will have to suffer.   People will stop feeding deer if training them to hang out by your tree stand it no longer the lazy hunter's way of killing them easily.   A couple home invaders won't be stopped.  Many children won't die of accidents and many more won't be murdered in school.  Firearms are useful, but not essential.     

Edited by Lark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites