Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You're allowed to have opinions even if a court has expressed one. Lots of people have opinions about Citizens United, for example.

The topic proposal doesn't make me feel particularly good.

By all means start a thread about the local development. Or, since those need water, we might want to talk about it over here.

I thought that I explained my position on the bill. 

It is technically constitutional.

But it is still a feel good, useless piece of legislation.  Banning the "a particular tool" does not prevent the craftsman from performing his craft, in this case killing people.

The, "Thou shalt nots" and The "Blessed are those" haven't worked.    The various legal remedies haven't worked.  This one won't either.

How we convince our fellow human beings to not kill each other is well beyond my pay grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

It is technically constitutional.

I don't think so.

The guiding case at the moment would have to be Kolbe, which said bans on battlefield weapons are OK. I think that inverts the intent of the second, since owning battlefield weapons used to be required, not banned.

I'm still waiting to see a pic of any soldier, anywhere, holding a .22 like mine.

But on to more important matters: I need some hardware for new rod holders. You going to be in the store today?

Share this post


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

...since owning battlefield weapons used to be required, not banned.

Cherry picking again this morning? Using hyperbole, too?

This sweeping generalization from Pooplius is inaccurate. Ownership and storage of weapons was handled several ways in the colonies (on "the plantation", as contemporary writers called it).. Many states provided and stored the arms. Some states said they would, and failed to do so. 

Quote

But as the colonists discovered how difficult and dangerous military service could be, enthusiasm waned. Many men preferred to remain home, in the safety of what Gen. George Washington described as their “Chimney Corner.” Early in the war, Washington wrote that he despaired of “compleating the army by Voluntary Inlistments.” Mindful that volunteers had rushed to enlist when hostilities began, Washington predicted that “after the first emotions are over,” those who were willing to serve from a belief in the “goodness of the cause” would amount to little more than “a drop in the Ocean.” He was correct. As 1776 progressed, many colonies were compelled to entice soldiers with offers of cash bounties, clothing, blankets and extended furloughs or enlistments shorter than the one-year term of service established by Congress.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myths-of-the-american-revolution-10941835/#Tu8XJrQCwSgZ94Gd.99

Did I mention the hyperbole in play? 

Quote

Jefferson's Class Structured Militia

 Jefferson’s efforts to arm the entire enrolled militia according to the letter of the law, however, does not coincide with his preference for a class-structured militia. Jefferson made numerous attempts to discard the 1792 National Militia Act and replace it with a select militia, consisting of men between the ages of twenty and twenty-six.69 He personally felt that the general militia, enrolled through the National Militia Act, would not slow down an army of regulars, and he hoped that Congress would adopt some medium solution that prevented the maintenance of a permanent standing army.70

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [p180] cooperate in the work of defence.

The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.

A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].

Also,

Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a "good fixed musket," not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should "contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, . . ." Also,

That every noncommissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

etc.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:

That every able-bodied Male Person, being [p181] a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . .

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes) declared,

The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia, and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months."

Also that

Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [p182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.

Which is a long way for the SCOTUS to say...

19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

owning battlefield weapons used to be required, not banned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 7:19 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Mate, you joined in on an existing (long running) gun control thread where both sides were already well passed honest participation. What exactly did you expect? Princess Jeffie and Tedious Tom would be feeding the same kind of "ha, gotcha!" lines to gun control advocates that leapt in here too. 

After all, you deliberately misconstrued the ridicule of "thoughts and prayers" as spoken by politicians to avoid doing anything real about the problem as being ridicule of religious services offering their sympathies. You were going to get some blowback for that and if you really weren't expecting that, your trip to Italy did a great job wiping your memory of this place.

I'll disagree that I deliberately misconstrued anything - but, the rest of your comments are true, and articulate one causal factor in the increasing divisiveness we are experiencing in the country. 

Share this post


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

I'll disagree that I deliberately misconstrued anything - but, the rest of your comments are true, and articulate one causal factor in the increasing divisiveness we are experiencing in the country. 

If you didn't deliberately misconstrue the target, you are being ignorant of the line's target to the point it looks wilful on your part. The "thoughts and prayers" line is not & was not, as you argued, used against everyday people holding religious services in shared sorrow and memory of this tragedy. It is specifically a line of ridicule directed at the politicians that use that line of twaddle as their standard response to any tragedy involving firearms in your country. It's their "get out of a press conference free" card.

Changing the targets of the ridicule  to drum up outrage at innocents no-one is mocking is either dishonest or speaks to you having conveniently forgotten where the line came from in the first place. It's not new in your country nor here in PA. I find it hard to believe from your other writing that you somehow missed that. However, if you did - I apologise and you now can apologise for your over-reaction based on your misunderstanding of who was being targeted by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

If you didn't deliberately misconstrue the target, you are being ignorant of the line's target to the point it looks wilful on your part. The "thoughts and prayers" line is not & was not, as you argued, used against everyday people holding religious services in shared sorrow and memory of this tragedy. It is specifically a line of ridicule directed at the politicians that use that line of twaddle as their standard response to any tragedy involving firearms in your country. It's their "get out of a press conference free" card.

Changing the targets of the ridicule  to drum up outrage at innocents no-one is mocking is either dishonest or speaks to you having conveniently forgotten where the line came from in the first place. It's not new in your country nor here in PA. I find it hard to believe from your other writing that you somehow missed that. However, if you did - I apologise and you now can apologise for your over-reaction based on your misunderstanding of who was being targeted by that.

Given the constant sniping, comments about people who believe in "sky fairies", and general denigration of anything having to do with religion or faith?  I don't think I over-reacted. You're correct in your attribution of the source of the phrase - but, given the timing of when it was offered in this thread - I honestly wasn't thinking about that - I was thinking about the reports of the vigils that the folks in KY were holding.  

Share this post


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

Given the constant sniping, comments about people who believe in "sky fairies", and general denigration of anything having to do with religion or faith?  I don't think I over-reacted. You're correct in your attribution of the source of the phrase - but, given the timing of when it was offered in this thread - I honestly wasn't thinking about that - I was thinking about the reports of the vigils that the folks in KY were holding.  

Who you were thinking about has nothing to do with who someone else was targeting with their ridicule, Chesapeake. You know that. The "timing of when it was offered in this thread" was the same it has been for years - "immediately after the incident was reported". The people using the line are the same ones that mock NRA-owned politicians for using that line every time a mass shooting makes the news. And like it or not, that includes people who are not part of the regular "religious sniping" contingent. 

You are projecting your issues with religious "sniping" onto a line being used to mock political blather. That's on you. You acknowledge where the line came from and so knew that when you lost your shit. I might buy that you were feeling religiously victimised at the time, given where you say your thoughts were at... but I'm not buying that you still think that. 

Share this post


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

Who you were thinking about has nothing to do with who someone else was targeting with their ridicule, Chesapeake. You know that. The "timing of when it was offered in this thread" was the same it has been for years - "immediately after the incident was reported". The people using the line are the same ones that mock NRA-owned politicians for using that line every time a mass shooting makes the news. And like it or not, that includes people who are not part of the regular "religious sniping" contingent. 

You are projecting your issues with religious "sniping" onto a line being used to mock political blather. That's on you. You acknowledge where the line came from and so knew that when you lost your shit. I might buy that you were feeling religiously victimised at the time, given where you say your thoughts were at... but I'm not buying that you still think that. 

I thought I conceded that point as I was explaining why I reacted the way I did.  If that's not enough to assuage any hurt feelings - sorry - that's all I plan to offer. 

Share this post


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

I thought I conceded that point as I was explaining why I reacted the way I did.  If that's not enough to assuage any hurt feelings - sorry - that's all I plan to offer. 

Excusing oneself for reacting badly and actually apologising for reacting badly are two very different things. The latter is an indication of integrity that I had been lead to believe you possessed. My apologies if your increasingly reactionary posts of late are a more accurate reflection of the man behind the account than the longer more considered ones I had initially judged you by.

Share this post


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

Which is a long way for the SCOTUS to say...

 

Your cite is lacking for Post 506.

Your myth is that personal guns drove all the  militias, which  wasn't true in all places at all times. You cite only three of thirteen colonies, in a partial time frame. You have demonstrated nothing.

All militia guns were not kept at home, Tom.  Some militias used armories for guns, and most stored powder collectively, as required by law. Some states supplied the militia guns. Some companies preferred those state-owned guns in private hands, some didn't. (Some captains wanted the guns applied to hot spots, not just sitting in inaction.)

 

Jefferson cautioned against the Pooplius armed rabble concept, and had the last laugh when the War of 1812 developed. The homespun militias never really materialized after the Militia Act of 1794, and were not principal in the defeat of English forces in the conflict.

Share this post


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

the assize of arms.

This English tradition, the requirement to own guns, applied to freemen only. It was, inherently, a suppression machine supporting landed Protestants ( It empowered Protestants as justices of the peace.) The Massachussetts colony overdid it with the assize of arms, and the openly  persecuted Quakers soon gained the King's ear.

Tom's "patriots"? Religious "freedom"? The Massachusetts Bay Colony was full of cunts, it seems.

Share this post


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

I thought I conceded that point as I was explaining why I reacted the way I did.  If that's not enough to assuage any hurt feelings - sorry - that's all I plan to offer. 

Don’t get sucked into Bents pedantic arguments. He lives for this shit. He knows damn well what you said and how you said it. It was crystal clear and perfectly correct for the context of the thread at that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't listen to Jeff, he's got guns and he earns his cash from a foreign power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
  On 1/28/2018 at 4:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

owning battlefield weapons used to be required, not banned.

Only sometimes, in some places. Let's discuss the Boston Armory around July 20 of 1768. This little stunt brought Gen Gage into the picture:

Quote

(p424) This very Morning the Select Men of the Town ordered the Magazine of Arms belonging to the Town to be brought out to be cleaned, when they were exposed for some Hours at the Town-House.  They were expostulated with for this imprudent act; they excused themselves by saying, that those Arms were ordered to be cleaned two Months ago.514

Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2009

When brought to court by Boston's Gov. Bernard, the colonists claimed they were preparing for a French invasion that day. But the militia guns of Boston on that day in 1768 were found in, and displayed from, a common armory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Don’t get sucked into Bents pedantic arguments. He lives for this shit. He knows damn well what you said and how you said it.

You seem to have missed the point of contention. Chesapeake and I are in agreement about what he said and why. He just doesn't think he should apologise for it.

Though appreciate the (failed) attempt to pile on a poster without actually bothering to read the conversation. It does illustrate exactly the ingrained divisiveness Chesapeake was talking about. Good job :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 1/29/2018 at 3:00 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Which is a long way for the SCOTUS to say...

 

Your cite is lacking for Post 506.

Yeah, I know, I just wanted to trick you into admitting once again that you've never read the Miller decision.

And it worked!

Never ceases to amuse me.

Share this post


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

You seem to have missed the point of contention. Chesapeake and I are in agreement about what he said and why. He just doesn't think he should apologise for it.

Though appreciate the (failed) attempt to pile on a poster without actually bothering to read the conversation. It does illustrate exactly the ingrained divisiveness Chesapeake was talking about. Good job :lol: 

Jeff - I appreciate the assist - but, Bent's actually right on this point.  I don't feel a need to apologize for my reaction, and an explanation is all I plan to offer. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, I know, I just wanted to trick you into admitting once again that you've never read the Miller decision.

And it worked!

Never ceases to amuse me.

If you've read it, you have intentionally boogered it. Then you lied about the boogering.

Quote

  On 11/27/2017 at 12:43 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And I never claimed "that Miller grants guns to The People."

 

Quote

Scot's search function. Miller > Uncooperative Tom >

Result:  5 PAGES OF TOM RAY CONTENT MAKING ERRONEOUS MILLER CLAIMS

  • (Tom Ray:) Oct. 23 2016. JBSF and I are part of the people just like Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. If your last question were relevant to whether the second amendment applies to us, the Supreme Court never would have heard Miller's case. But they did. And then Lawrence Tribe admitted why. But keep clinging to that lie.
  • (Tom Ray:) Nov. 5 2016. I only claim he (Miller) was part of "the people" from which the militia is drawn and the Supreme Court seems to have thought that was enough to make the second amendment cover him, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. 
  • (Guess Who) Nov. 7, 2016. How could there be a Miller case if the 2A did not apply to Miller? You know he was not enrolled, right? Just part of "the people" whose rights are protected by the amendment.

 

 

 

The People were never considered in Miller. It took an extended CATO operation to fabricate The People into the Second Amendment in the Parker Case, in 2007. They were setting up the Heller Case and making shit up. 

Miller vs U.S. considers Mr. Miller only as a fighting age male. Miller reflects and affirms militia gun rights. (The secondary gun rights later gutted by Heller. Individual rights are core shit, baby.)

Quote

 

p378 [Vol. 9:323 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW &PUBLIC POLICY

The 1792 NATIONAL MILITIA ACT, the Second Amendment, and Individual Militia Rights:

A Legal and Historical Perspective https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1705564

 

Madison’s reference to the States’ power to “collect the national will,” “direct the national force,” and the people’s requisite attachment to “subordinate governments” and the militia is telling.355 It illuminates that the State governments are the intermediary by which “the people” have the authority to exercise Blackstone’s right of “self-preservation and resistance.”356 Madison also illuminates that the purpose of the militia right to “keep and bear arms” was to take part in “defend[ing] the rights of which they would be in actual possession.”357 Madison highlighted this purpose in another portion of Federalist No. 46, writing that citizen militias are the bulwark of national defense because they “fight[] for their common liberties, and [are] united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”358

Relax, I never claimed to have read Miller. As usual, I've read learned summaries which refer to solid text. And they exposed your claim.

Share this post


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

Your cite is STILL  lacking for Post 506.

Dishonest propaganda much?

1. Consider yourself challenged on anything Miller, you poser dumbass. 

2. Please provide access to the quote you are using. No link? No section of the decision, or page number. You know, no access? No context? No perspective? And thus, no creds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 1:07 PM, jocal505 said:
On 1/29/2018 at 9:20 PM, jocal505 said:

Your cite is STILL  lacking for Post 506.

Dishonest propaganda much?

1. Consider yourself challenged on anything Miller, you poser dumbass. 

OK. Post 506 is quoted from the Miller opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 1:07 PM, jocal505 said:

Please provide access to the quote you are using. No link? No section of the decision, or page number. You know, no access? No context? No perspective? And thus, no creds?

Kinda like your "quote" from the Wrenn decision?

Share this post


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

Kinda like your "quote" from the Wrenn decision?

I hadn't saved that link, but couldn't resist entering the content. CCP has been, and will be,  a bloody path. The evidence says that, not me.

 

The story behind Wrenn would make a hollywood movie, just because of Palmer...then Levy gets on board.

Robert Levy.jpg

Frankly, I'd like another account of what happened when that anti-gay mob developed in front of Palmer that night in San Diego... LMFAO. Anyway...

Come on, lay out your Wrenn insights for us. You have read it, and it moved you, and you have so much to share.  Proceed.

Share this post


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

Kinda like your "quote" from the Wrenn decision?

I take it you want to rumble about Wrenn. My Wrenn folder has seventy entries in it, half of them are sorted chapters from reply briefs. I've looked at it a bit, and sorted Henderson's dissent. It's worth talking about. 

Sorry, my first position will be based on history. From Henderson's dissent, p 26

Quote

"history speaks with “one voice" on the Amendment"

My colleagues attempt to minimize the Supreme Court’s declarations by insisting that the relevant history speaks with “one voice on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.” Maj. Op. 12-13 p32 (internal quotation marks omitted). But their view of history is with blinders on as it is contradicted by our sister circuits’ extensive review of the same historical  record. Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91

(“History and tradition do not speak with one voice here. What history demonstrates is that states often disagreed as to the scope of the right to bear arms, whether the right was embodied in a state constitution or the Second Amendment.”); Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (same); Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 470-71

 (“[A]s we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”); cf. Peruta, 824 F.3d at 939

(in U.S. history, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public”).

 

 I would join these circuits and find that the “core” Second Amendment right does not extend beyond the home given the history upholding “public carry” regulations, a history “enshrined with[in] the scope of the Second Amendment when it was adopted.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 96 (alteration in original)

(“The historical prevalence of the regulation of firearms in public demonstrates that while the Second Amendment’s core concerns are strongest inside hearth and home, states have long recognized a countervailing and competing set of concerns with regard to handgun ownership and use in public.”).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bogus history annoys me, especially if manufactured by and weaponized by Libertarians.

Quote

***The historical problem within Heller, from Wrenn plea for en banc review (61pgs) July 25 2017

II. P13 The Majority Departed From Binding Precedent By Declining To Engage In The Required Historical Analysis.

The need for rehearing is heightened by the fact that the panel majority’s decision was incorrect. In particular, en banc consideration also is necessary to correct the majority’s departure from the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller I and this Court’s decisions in, inter alia, Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“Heller II”), and Heller III, 801 F.3d 264.

 In Heller I, the Supreme Court held that, because the Second Amendment codified a “pre-existing right,” courts must look to Framing-era law to determine the scope of the conduct it protects. 554 U.S. at 592; see id. at 579-619.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Petition20for20Rehearing20En20Banc20Wrenn20v.20DC20FILED1.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bpm57. You think you are a Wrenn Bruiser. I like that.

But what didn't really get sorted in Wrenn was that outdoor gun rights have inferior DNA. Look Mom, Heller gets quoted again

Quote

Wrenn Dissent, 7pgs, see p32

By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.

A right that is less notable and less acute cannot reside at the Second Amendment’s core.

 

Although “a regulation that imposes a substantial burden upon the core right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment must have a strong justification, . . . a regulation that imposes a less substantial burden should be proportionately easier to justify.” Id. at 1257. The sole Second Amendment “core” right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.

This conclusion is evidenced, first and foremost, by the United States Supreme Court’s declarations in District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I) that the

 “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008) (emphasis added),

and in McDonald v. City of Chicago that

 “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home,” 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010) (emphasis added).

 

 

Share this post


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

CCP has been, and will be,  a bloody path. The evidence says that, not me.

You know pee wee joe - I've been hearing you say that for years now and its utter and complete BS.  Statistically, CCP holders are far LESS prone to commit crime given that in most states they are required to go through even more strict vetting and background checks.

I think your BS stats are chicken/egg disingenuous crap.  I think in states where the numbers of murders and crime has gone up has spurred an increase in CCW permit applications.  Simply correlating a state's gun crime rate to the number of CCP holders there are is the absolute epitome of cherry picking to get to your predetermined conclusion.  

So unless you can pull some actual REAL stats out of your ass that shows that CCP holders themselves are responsible for the increase in the crime and murder rates by actually pulling the trigger - then just STFU for once!  But you can crow all you want about gun culture and shit, but MY having a CCW permit does NOT in any way cause someone else to pick up a gun and commit a crime in another part of the city or state.  It just doesn't fucking work that way.  

So please, with all due respect - produce those stats or just kindly STFU.  Or you could do both.  That would work to.

Share this post


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

Simply correlating a state's gun crime rate to the number of CCP holders there are is the absolute epitome of cherry picking to get to your predetermined conclusion.  

 

Don't mis-represent the recent Seigal work, in which comparisons were made between shall issue areas and may issue. 

Quote

Methods. We compared homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total, firearm, nonfirearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year period of 1991 to 2015

 

 

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Statistically, CCP holders are far LESS prone to commit crime given that in most states they are required to go through even more strict vetting and background checks.

That's one angle. Another is that may issue states seem to fare better. This is not marginal, at a 10% handgun increase. The 2013 study got an 8% increase in violent crime with RTC... and I reported it quite a few times. Wake up.

Quote

Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.

 

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So unless you can pull some actual REAL stats out of your ass that shows that CCP holders themselves are responsible for the increase in the crime and murder rates by actually pulling the trigger

It must be unlicensed bystanders doing all the shooting, more in Shall Issue areas than in May issue areas.

 

Share this post


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

(quoting the Wrenn dissent) The sole Second Amendment “core” right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.

Pooplius used to prance around spouting away about the "core right". 

Share this post


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

You know pee wee joe -

Jeffie, are we having imaginary conversations with Pee Wee?

Share this post


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

The sole Second Amendment “core” right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.

This conclusion is evidenced, first and foremost, by the United States Supreme Court’s declarations in District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I) that the

 “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008) (emphasis added),

and in McDonald v. City of Chicago that

 “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home,” 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010) (emphasis added).

 

Well, besides the fact that you are taking the dissent as the be-all truth, I wonder how one can torture "need is most acute""in the home" to "The sole Second Amendment “core” right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home." Please explain how the idea that something is most important in this place becomes "Because it is important in this place it does not apply anywhere else"

I guess she had to write something other then " the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion. " like she wrote in Heller.

Since you could say the "right to privacy" is most important in the home, does that also mean the 4th Amendment does not apply outside of it?

Henderson must be the luckiest judge ever, she always ends up on the 3 judge panels for the high profile gun cases.

 

Share this post


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

 

Well, besides the fact that you are taking the dissent as the be-all truth, I wonder how one can torture "need is most acute""in the home" to "The sole Second Amendment “core” right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home." Please explain how the idea that something is most important in this place becomes "Because it is important in this place it does not apply anywhere else"  Outdoor gun rights can still "apply", with a purpose which is anciliary

I guess she had to write something other then " the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion. " like she wrote in Heller.

Since you could say the "right to privacy" is most important in the home, does that also mean the 4th Amendment does not apply outside of it?

Henderson must be the luckiest judge ever, she always ends up on the 3 judge panels for the high profile gun cases.

 

Weak. Look, the MIlitia Act of 1792 was concurrent with the ratification and the Bill of Rights in 1794. Given the militia effort, and its importance then , and the circumstances behind the Second, I suspect that Scaila must have been feeling insecure to have to go all "core purpose" with hearth and home (which the Second does not actually mention, while stressing militia. This contrast is an affront to me.)

Scalia didn't have to, but he modified and stratified the authority and focus of the second. Then he doubled down on core purpose by minimizing the militia importance as a "preferatory" matter.

In holding individual self defense in the home as a holy grail, he took away your militia argument.

But you totally avoided the historical controversy. The Second was not a series of discussions about "self defense" with guns, in the streets. The founding father discussions show the colonists' obsession with getting the militia to work somehow, under both federal and state authority 

 

Share this post


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

But you totally avoided the historical controversy.

No, I was responding to your quote. And honestly, Joe, I'm not interested in your cherry-picked quotes - since contrary examples can be found for most of them, including your statute of northampton ones. Feel free to read some of the filings in Wrenn if want some examples.

I can quote Henderson again, if you would like.

On 2/1/2018 at 12:44 PM, jocal505 said:

By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.

Since you quoted this, Joe, feel free to find the passage in Heller that says the second part of her statement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2018 at 1:20 AM, jocal505 said:

Jeffie, are we having imaginary conversations with Pee Wee?

No pee wee joe - I'm having a conversation with you.  You seem to love the pee wee poster, so I thought it only fitting that you should wear that moniker.  It fits you nicely, I must say.  Maybe we should just call you PWJ for short, involves less typing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 9:44 PM, jocal505 said:

Hi bpm57. You think you are a Wrenn Bruiser. I like that.

But what didn't really get sorted in Wrenn was that outdoor gun rights have inferior DNA. Look Mom, Heller gets quoted again

Quote

Wrenn Dissent, 7pgs, see p32

By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.

A right that is less notable and less acute cannot reside at the Second Amendment’s core.

 

Although “a regulation that imposes a substantial burden upon the core right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment must have a strong justification, . . . a regulation that imposes a less substantial burden should be proportionately easier to justify.” Id. at 1257. The sole Second Amendment “core” right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.

This conclusion is evidenced, first and foremost, by the United States Supreme Court’s declarations in District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I) that the

 “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home, 554 U.S. 570, 628 (2008) (emphasis added),

and in McDonald v. City of Chicago that

 “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home,” 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010) (emphasis added).

Hey fuckstick, I've had enough of your willful ignorance and stupidity.  When using the phrases "most notably" and "most acute" - that absolutely infers that there are other less notable and less acute reasons that are also lawful purposes outside of the home.  If the 2A was ONLY allowed in the home, and nowhere else at all, then the writers of those decisions would not have added those qualifiers.  The fact that those qualifiers are even there is proof that the right to have a gun for self-defense outside the home is just as lawful.  The writers however, apparently chose to use the in side the home as the most clear example. 

Also notice that in Heller, Scalia uses the term lawful purposesNote that "purposes" is plural.  If the only lawful purpose was for use inside the home, again Scalia would have said that.  Scalia if nothing else, is known for his very clear and unambiguous writing style.  He understands that words have meaning and that scholars will pick apart his written words for generations, so he was very careful in how he used those words.

You have convinced yourself otherwise and I realize nothing anyone says here will change your mind.  But just know that everyone here mocks you and chuckles under their breath when they read your idiotic rantings about inside the home militias.  Even elk from your own herd here don't believe this shit.  While they might sympathize with you in general about your desire to change the so-called gun culture and remove gunz from society - I don't think even the most liberal here - maybe aside from soaks and bently - believes that the right to own a gun for self defense is limited ONLY to within the home.  Please just STFU for once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoo hoo, pee wee joe - customer service needed in aisle 7.

Share this post


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

Hey fuckstick, I've had enough of your willful ignorance and stupidity.  When using the phrases "most notably" and "most acute" - that absolutely infers that there are other less notable and less acute reasons that are also lawful purposes outside of the home.  If the 2A was ONLY allowed in the home, and nowhere else at all, then the writers of those decisions would not have added those qualifiers.  The fact that those qualifiers are even there is proof that the right to have a gun for self-defense outside the home is just as lawful.  The writers however, apparently chose to use the in side the home as the most clear example. 

Also notice that in Heller, Scalia uses the term lawful purposesNote that "purposes" is plural.  If the only lawful purpose was for use inside the home, again Scalia would have said that.  Scalia if nothing else, is known for his very clear and unambiguous writing style.  He understands that words have meaning and that scholars will pick apart his written words for generations, so he was very careful in how he used those words.

You have convinced yourself otherwise and I realize nothing anyone says here will change your mind.  But just know that everyone here mocks you and chuckles under their breath when they read your idiotic rantings about inside the home militias.  Even elk from your own herd here don't believe this shit.  While they might sympathize with you in general about your desire to change the so-called gun culture and remove gunz from society - I don't think even the most liberal here - maybe aside from soaks and bently - believes that the right to own a gun for self defense is limited ONLY to within the home.  Please just STFU for once.

Jocal?  Any thoughts here on this?  Tap tap tap...  is this thing on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to assume that jocal's silence on this is proof of his acquiescence to the point that Heller does not in fact limit guns to indoor use only.  The militias will finally be happy they can go out into the sunlight after all these years practicing shooting and marching in Bob's living room.  

Thanks for playing joey, it was fun while it lasted.

Share this post


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

Yoo hoo, pee wee joe - customer service needed in aisle 7.

You are out there somewhere, relating to Pee Wee? How is that going? 

Share this post


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

Jocal?  Any thoughts here on this?  Tap tap tap...  is this thing on?

 

5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

less notable and less acute reasons that are also lawful purposes outside of the home. 

A food chain, one might say. The indoor and outdoor gun rights are not equal, eh?

 

Quote
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The fact that those qualifiers are even there is proof that the right to have a gun for self-defense outside the home is just as lawful. 

Fluffy Boi rides again. ^^^ The Heller content doesn't say that, and the Statute of Northampton is the reason why.

 

5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Scalia if nothing else, is known for his very clear and unambiguous writing style.

Colorful, yes, but partisan and inconsistent. Heller had a needle point inconsistent with core Scalia. 

Quote

Dennis Henegan, on Originalism 31pgs

District of Columbia v. Heller has been hailed by its supporters as a model of “new originalism,” a methodology that focuses on original public meaning and eschews any concern for original intent. The decision and its methodology have drawn fire from legal scholars from across the contemporary ideological spectrum. The “public meaning” approach employed by the Heller majority rests on a flawed methodology that is antithetical to Founding-era interpretive practices. The problems with this method are evident in Justice Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment’s preamble. Scalia uses a “Cheshire Cat rule of construction” in which he reads the text of the Second Amendment backwards. In this bizarre approach, the Second Amendment’s preamble vanishes during the process of interpretation and only reappears at the very end when it is used to confirm Scalia’s interpretation. This rule has no foundation in Founding-era practice and violates the Blackstonian method favored by most judges in the Founding era. The problems with new originalism are also evident in post-Heller commentary, particularly criticism of Justice Stevens’ dissent. Gun rights advocates have been especially outraged by Stevens’ discussion of St. George Tucker. Yet, when Tucker’s earliest writings on the Second Amendment are examined with a Blackstonian interpretive method, they lend additional weight to Stevens’ argument. Indeed, Tucker’s earliest comments on the Second Amendment challenge Scalia’s ahistorical claim that the Founders believed that the English Bill of Rights established a broad right to have arms. In contrast to Scalia, Tucker thought that the scope of the English right to arms was so limited that it was virtually non-existent.

http://www.uclalawreview.org/heller-new-originalism-and-law-office-history-“meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss”/

 

Share this post


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

Hey fuckstick, I've had enough of your willful ignorance and stupidity.  When using the phrases "most notably" and "most acute" - that absolutely infers that there are other less notable and less acute reasons that are also lawful purposes outside of the home.  If the 2A was ONLY allowed in the home, and nowhere else at all, then the writers of those decisions would not have added those qualifiers.  The fact that those qualifiers are even there is proof that the right to have a gun for self-defense outside the home is just as lawful.  The writers however, apparently chose to use the in side the home as the most clear example. 

Also notice that in Heller, Scalia uses the term lawful purposesNote that "purposes" is plural.  If the only lawful purpose was for use inside the home, again Scalia would have said that.  Scalia if nothing else, is known for his very clear and unambiguous writing style.  He understands that words have meaning and that scholars will pick apart his written words for generations, so he was very careful in how he used those words.

You have convinced yourself otherwise and I realize nothing anyone says here will change your mind.  But just know that everyone here mocks you and chuckles under their breath when they read your idiotic rantings about inside the home militias.  Even elk from your own herd here don't believe this shit.  While they might sympathize with you in general about your desire to change the so-called gun culture and remove gunz from society - I don't think even the most liberal here - maybe aside from soaks and bently - believes that the right to own a gun for self defense is limited ONLY to within the home.  Please just STFU for once.

 

Quote

But just know that everyone here mocks you and chuckles under their breath when they read your idiotic rantings about inside the home militias.

Set your personal venom aside, big guy. And please excuse my homework, but...

 

5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I don't think even the most liberal here - maybe aside from soaks and bently - believes that the right to own a gun for self defense is limited ONLY to within the home.  Please just STFU for once.

The castile doctrine is being extended by the SAF without a legal baseline. The Bill of Rights is being hijacked and distorted to accomplish this.

Here is the dead end discovered by Mr. Peruta, again. Armed conflict in public has never been tolerated. You need to extend this case law:

Quote

Assuming arguendo that the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home,2 seeDrake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 431 (3d Cir. 2013) (declining “to definitively declare that the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home”);

--Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (same);

--Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 876 (4th Cir. 2013) (same);

--Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (same),

 

Quote

Even elk from your own herd here don't believe this shit.  While they might sympathize with you in general about your desire to change the so-called gun culture and remove gunz from society - I don't think even the most liberal here - maybe aside from soaks and bently - believes that the right to own a gun for self defense is limited ONLY to within the home. 

^^^ Your princess ass is in a thong, gloriously, on the borrowed parade convertible, and I got left out too.

The beliefs of my mates will not drive what happens here. Our laws will be extended in a certain direction, based on voter choices and court interpretations. I'm just stating the current legal status. The SC appears to be 7-2 against breeching castile doctrine, mate.

Share this post


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

The SC appears to be 7-2 against breeching castile doctrine,

Source? Or do you think that because only 2 wrote an objection to not hearing Peruta - that it means that the other 7 were against taking the case?

Kind of a stretch, don't you think?

What Drake held was "the 'justifiable need' standard of the Handgun Permit Law is a longstanding regulation that enjoys presumptive constitutionality."

Because it has been around a while, that makes it OK... SCOTUS didn't buy that argument in Heller, but that didn't stop CA3..

So, NJ continues to be "may issue", which means "are you a politician, or very well connected politically? Then you can have one."  The rest of us have to rely on 911.
 

Share this post


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

Armed conflict in public has never been tolerated.

Cite? Are you really claiming self-defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Whatever you are smoking or drinking, it might be best if you stayed away from the keyboard afterwards.

Share this post


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

Source? Or do you think that because only 2 wrote an objection to not hearing Peruta - that it means that the other 7 were against taking the case?

Pretty much. 7-2 is a pattern even Scalia got used to. Peruta is part of a pattern of declined outdoor gun cases.

Quote

So, NJ continues to be "may issue", which means "are you a politician, or very well connected politically? Then you can have one."  The rest of us have to rely on 911.
 

Welcome to the civilized world. Your desire for a weapon is based on ancient precepts of retribution. You are a fancy sort, and a Wrenn expert too, so show us some case law for armed confrontation on the streets,

Share this post


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

Cite? Are you really claiming self-defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Sir, you evidently missed some prolonged conversations on these boards. That said,  I welcome your take on this, thank you for asking.

I came across your answer in the scrum of angry historians speaking within McDonald.

Quote

Self-Defense, Defense of Others, and the State

BY DARRELL A. H. MILLER 2017 21     pgs

From < Self-defense as divine law will not be addressed in this article. It is an article of faith among many that self-defense comes from God and is beyond any human agency. But such a claim is not receptive to conventional tools of legal reasoning and therefore must be left to other forms of disputation by other types of scholars. The history of self-defense at common law shows that the core self-defense right identified in Heller is not as indisputably individualistic, inalienable, and innate as is often assumed. Instead, the state’s role in this concept has been dominant throughout history. Understanding the history of this core of the Second Amendment right has potential implications for public policy and law concerning firearms. It suggests that the state has a power, and perhaps an obligation, to ensure that private capacity to render lethal force conforms to minimum standards of safety, training, and discipline.

http://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/self-defense-defense-of-others-and-the-state-miller-vol80-iss2/

 

Quote

p89 Though the factual circumstances of a given homicide may have resisted clear categorization, the legal distinction was well established and consequential:32 Homicide was justified only when one acted as an actual or implicit agent of the sovereign.33 Justified homicide led to acquittal; homicide solely in self-defense required the king’s special mercy.

(...)Those who killed in self-defense had to submit a request for pardon to the king or to his ministers.37 The Statute of Gloucester (1278),38 for example, provided that those accused of homicide who claimed self-defense had to remain in jail, plead the defense to the king’s justices, and upon report of the justices to the sovereign, “the King shall take [the accused] to his Grace, if it please him.”39 The pardon was not costless. The individual may have had to surrender his goods to the king as a condition of the pardon.40 Even then, the individual still was vulnerable to a private action by the family of the slain.41

(...)  It was only in the generations afterward, as American law grew independent from its English progenitors that a unique American self-defense law emerged and the distinction between justifiable homicide in the service of law enforcement and homicide as pure self-preservation began to collapse.74

 

Share this post


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

Pretty much. 7-2 is a pattern even Scalia got used to.

So you are making assumptions and making shit up. gotcha.

So when the SCOTUS order list comes out - and there is, as always, a long list of "cert denied" cases - with 0 objections to any of them - does that mean the vote was 0-9 on all of them?

6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Welcome to the civilized world.

Yes, Newark and Camden are noted for their civility

6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Your desire for a weapon is based on ancient precepts of retribution.

You can stop the sanctimonious act any time now, between your racist views on gun control and advocating violence just a few posts ago.

Not to mention, a person who claims to be a pacifist, but owns a gun...

Share this post


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

Sir, you evidently missed some prolonged conversations on these boards. That said,  I welcome your take on this, thank you for asking.

I came across your answer in the scrum of angry historians speaking within McDonald.

 

As is normal, you miss the point. You said:

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Armed conflict in public has never been tolerated.

So, please, answer the question.

Are you claiming that self defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Your cut and paste does not answer that.

Share this post


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

So you are making assumptions and making shit up. gotcha.

Peruta was the fifth outdoor gun case declined by the SC. The count was 7-2 against discussion. You seem to have a high bluster factor. 

You don't need to cite blacks to have gun rights. Or do you?

Share this post


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

As is normal, you miss the point. You said:

So, please, answer the question.

Are you claiming that self defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Your cut and paste does not answer that.

The Statute of Northampton kinda does. You participated in combat at your own risk outside your home.  Pointedly and consistently, even the outdoor victors were detained, disarmed, scrutinized, and even penalized. The laws were kept vague to aid the judges, it is said. Read the quoteblocks if not the links, mate.

THERE WAS NO EVOLUTION OF THIS LAW. EVENTUALLY IT SPOKE, ESSENTIALLY AS WRITTEN, WITHIN THREE STATE CONSTITUTIONS

Quote

Statute of Northampton text ,1328 AD

  • Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King's pleasure.
  •  
  •  And that the King's justices in their presence, sheriffs, and other ministers in their bailiwicks, lords of franchises, and their bailiffs in the same, and mayors and bailiffs of cities and boroughs, within the same cities and boroughs, and borough-holders, constables, and wardens of the peace within their wards, shall have power to execute this act.
  •  
  • And that the justices assigned, at their coming down into the country, shall have power to enquire how such officers and lords have exercised their offices in this case, and to punish them whom they find that have not done that which pertained to their office.
  • http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/eng/statute_northampton.htm

 

Share this post


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

Peruta was the fifth outdoor gun case declined by the SC. The count was 7-2 against discussion. You seem to have a high bluster factor. 

You seem to have an insight into the inner workings of the SCOTUS, Joe. Can you tell us the next case they will be accepting? Maybe some data on how the internal vote goes for all the cert denied cases?

Or maybe give us a stronger reason to believe your "only 2 joined in an objection, so therefore the vote was 7-2"

Since only 2 of them joined in an opinion about Floyd v. Alabama being denied, does that also mean the vote was 7-2?

 

Share this post


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

You seem to have an insight into the inner workings of the SCOTUS, Joe. Can you tell us the next case they will be accepting? Maybe some data on how the internal vote goes for all the cert denied cases?

Or maybe give us a stronger reason to believe your "only 2 joined in an objection, so therefore the vote was 7-2"

Since only 2 of them joined in an opinion about Floyd v. Alabama being denied, does that also mean the vote was 7-2?

 

Did you not just lose the plot, mate? Do I sense bully type energy in play?

Share this post


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

[blah, blah, blah]

I get it, Joe. You have no opinion whatsoever, only cut-n-pastes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Did you not just lose the plot, mate?

I would spell it out to you Joe, but it would just be quoting your words back to you. You claim to know the inner workings of the supreme court, I'm just trying to find out how deep your knowledge goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cite? Are you really claiming self-defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Calm down sonny. Try a re-set. ^^^

Try some armed confrontation in the street, go ahead. You will be disarmed. You will be detained. The situation and your behavior will be scrutinized, by both LE and Justice. You will face court dates. You can petition for the return of your weapon.

Self defense rights? In a fist fight, the standards are more gentle, but similar.

 

Does this sound familiar?

Share this post


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

I would spell it out to you Joe, but it would just be quoting your words back to you. You claim to know the inner workings of the supreme court, I'm just trying to find out how deep your knowledge goes.

Not very. But I read me some Howard Hughes. He had a thing about using the intelligence of others. He saw no need to be the smartest guy in the room. On the contrary.

Our subject is outdoor gun rights, if any. If you understand the thunder of Wrenn, you have not released it.

Share this post


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

I get it, Joe. You have no opinion whatsoever, only cut-n-pastes.

 

Dang it, I answered your question with a current, learned expert, and a link to his treatise. One man's pertinent information in another man's mere "cut-n-paste."

But to summarize Miller in Post 545, the law of the jungle does not apply.In a civilization, the state has an effective monopoly on violence. And traditionally, the state has a great say over interpersonal violence.

 

BTW, the castle doctrine is the single notable evolution in 4oo years of Northhamoton. One could fight away within his home, with impunity.

Share this post


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

And traditionally, the state has a great say over interpersonal violence.

Joe, that wasn't the question that was asked. You said:

5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Armed conflict in public has never been tolerated.

I asked: Are you really claiming self-defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Answering this does not require quotes from legal journal articles about macdonald, or quotes from the statute of northhampton.

It requires a yes or no.

If you want to talk about the many states - including Washington - that explicitly protect self-defense in their state constitutions, maybe work that in after the yes or no.

Share this post


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

Joe, that wasn't the question that was asked. You said:

I asked: Are you really claiming self-defense is not allowed under any circumstance?

Answering this does not require quotes from legal journal articles about macdonald, or quotes from the statute of northhampton.

It requires a yes or no.

If you want to talk about the many states - including Washington - that explicitly protect self-defense in their state constitutions, maybe work that in after the yes or no.

You may discover someday that yes-or-no formats have limited applications.

I've answered your question by documenting the current and past legal parameters for outdoor violence, armed or unarmed. They are the same: manslaughter is kinda suspected, always. Since 1329, mate.

Why? In Old English Law, they stated it was for the good of his majesty's subjects. The laws did not stand behind armed individuals because of terror. The terror factor alone defeated the mounted men in armor, who, curiously,  had originally  accosted justices and scholars. I can cite the terror objection in England, and it applies in the USA today. 

 

So, bpm57, you didn't like the bottom line, but I answered on point, given your sophistication. ANSWER: Self defense is always "allowed," then manslaughter is treated as probable, by the nearest DA..

 

 

Share this post


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

I get it, Joe. You have no opinion whatsoever, only cut-n-pastes.

 

You're just NOW figuring this out??????  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Excuse me, but I hold a certain wonderment of the universe. I can grasp the wonder, but seldom the universe.

2. I seem to have enough opinions to be much-excoriated by the SA Gun Club.

 

Not to sound defensive, but... Historians have points of view...which they expect to evolve.  They feed the chain of information with contrasting views, then re-group. Wofsey's fucking brain works that way. The more a scientist determines, the more questions he uncovers.

So I hold opinions, which are hopefully open to a growth factor. My opinions of the SAF have evolved in the past five years. I was once suspicious of what I eventually confirmed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 2/3/2018 at 10:02 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Hey fuckstick, I've had enough of your willful ignorance and stupidity.  When using the phrases "most notably" and "most acute" - that absolutely infers that there are other less notable and less acute reasons that are also lawful purposes outside of the home.  If the 2A was ONLY allowed in the home, and nowhere else at all, then the writers of those decisions would not have added those qualifiers.  The fact that those qualifiers are even there is proof that the right to have a gun for self-defense outside the home is just as lawful.  The writers however, apparently chose to use the in side the home as the most clear example. 

Also notice that in Heller, Scalia uses the term lawful purposesNote that "purposes" is plural.  If the only lawful purpose was for use inside the home, again Scalia would have said that.  Scalia if nothing else, is known for his very clear and unambiguous writing style.  He understands that words have meaning and that scholars will pick apart his written words for generations, so he was very careful in how he used those words.

You have convinced yourself otherwise and I realize nothing anyone says here will change your mind.  But just know that everyone here mocks you and chuckles under their breath when they read your idiotic rantings about inside the home militias.  Even elk from your own herd here don't believe this shit.  While they might sympathize with you in general about your desire to change the so-called gun culture and remove gunz from society - I don't think even the most liberal here - maybe aside from soaks and bently - believes that the right to own a gun for self defense is limited ONLY to within the home.  Please just STFU for once.

 

Set your personal venom aside, big guy. And please excuse my homework, but...

You ignorant and disingenuous POS!  You completely sidestepped the point I made and avoided addressing them.  Heller and McDonald both implied that there are lawful purposes outside the home and that the home was the most obvious example but not the only example.  You continue to quote the Wrenn dissent.   The dissent means that opinion lost, therefore it is not valid except only to you sore losers who cannot let go of the notion of only indoor gun rights and indoor militias.  Dissent = loser.

BTW - Do you even understand how FUCKING stupid that sounds when you say it out loud???  Indoor only gun rights.  Even your most ardent gun grabber here thinks you are full of shit about this.  

So let me ask you this, dumbschidt:  If you truly believe that gun rights are only valid indoors - how do you take the gun out to go practice at the range?  How do you go hunting?  How do you even buy a gun and get it home if you are not allowed to take it outside???  Do gun dealers now have to do home deliveries???  

You and your elk have clearly not thought this argument through very well, have you?

Share this post


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

BTW - Do you even understand how FUCKING stupid that sounds when you say it out loud??? 

You could make a bumper sticker. Indoor only gun rights. You could lecture up and down the Third Grader Trail, marketing the bumper stickers. When you get home, you could march against Trump indoors in your undies, legally, with both AW's, all holstered up/tactically cool.

 

31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

  Even your most ardent gun grabber here thinks you are full of shit about this.  

Are you not doing a Nunes here? For whom are you speaking? Can't stand alone much?

OMG, I hope you don't get me voted off the island, because I've got you where I want you. trapped in Ignoranceville, and under seige.

31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You and your elk have clearly not thought this argument through very well, have you?

Blackstone is my elk, you poser. Quoted by Scalia, mate. Scalia's track record was England, from where they confiscated guns in three countries, and within which they discouraged armed confrontations in public.

Keep it simple. Where is your case law for outdoor gun  mayhem?

Share this post


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

Keep it simple. Where is your case law for outdoor gun  mayhem?

If by "mayhem" you mean "self-defense" as you usually do, I've cited Beard before.

When the evil libertarians time-traveled back to affect that case, it really screwed up your argument, didn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop avoiding the question joecal - if gun rights are ONLY to be exercised indoors - then why does Scalia use the plural to refer to "lawful purposes"???  If there is only one lawful purpose - and that is inside the home, it would be singular and no need for the "s". 

Why do you think why do you think lawful purposes is plural?  Keep tap dancing joke-al, but I'm not going to let this one go.  

Share this post


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

Stop avoiding the question joecal - if gun rights are ONLY to be exercised indoors - then why does Scalia use the plural to refer to "lawful purposes"???  If there is only one lawful purpose - and that is inside the home, it would be singular and no need for the "s". 

Why do you think why do you think lawful purposes is plural?  Keep tap dancing joke-al, but I'm not going to let this one go.  

Panties in a bunch much? Is it self-inflicted?

Share this post


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

If by "mayhem" you mean "self-defense" as you usually do, I've cited Beard before.

When the evil libertarians time-traveled back to affect that case, it really screwed up your argument, didn't it?

Ah, Beard. In 1895. How much credence does that give the founding-father-era bullshit found in Malcolm? You are off by a full century, mate. 

Tom, my overall historical position is that "self defense" in the USA evolved in a most violent way, over time. Beard fits into this evolution picture just fine, but you need to find authority from the 1790's.

 

 

I found the history snippets you presented to Elle, back in the days you would discuss the specifics of history.

Are you, then, a Joyce Lee Malcolm fan? Seriously, it's scary that you won't or can't weigh in. This discussion is at the core of your individual rights claims (the claims that eroded militia rights and outdoor rights via Heller).

Share this post


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

Ah, Beard. In 1895. How much credence does that give the founding-father-era bullshit found in Malcolm?

It only proves that libertarians have traveled back in time that far. How else could the court have reached the conclusion they did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Stop avoiding the question joecal - if gun rights are ONLY to be exercised indoors - then why does Scalia use the plural to refer to "lawful purposes"???  If there is only one lawful purpose - and that is inside the home, it would be singular and no need for the "s". 

Why do you think why do you think lawful purposes is plural?  Keep tap dancing joke-al, but I'm not going to let this one go.  

Panties in a bunch much? Is it self-inflicted?

That's ok, I will take your silence and refusal to answer as direct corroboration that you finally agree with me that gun rights are lawful both indoors and outdoors.  

Which is a really good thing too...... cause Boudreau and the boyz down on the Bayou were getting tired of marching around in Thibodeaux's living room trying to keep their militia skills sharp.  Now they can finally go outside and get some fresh air and stop bumping into each other.  

Share this post


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

It only proves that libertarians have traveled back in time that far. How else could the court have reached the conclusion they did?

From the OCD Playlist.

Tom, a serious question here. How many times do you suppose the average person wants to be exposed to this silly idea, or a similarly silly idea?

The comment was a mechanism to avoid documenting your own historical basis. Like a poser, unfortunately.

Share this post


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

That's ok, I will take your silence and refusal to answer as direct corroboration that you finally agree with me that gun rights are lawful both indoors and outdoors.  

Which is a really good thing too...... cause Boudreau and the boyz down on the Bayou were getting tired of marching around in Thibodeaux's living room trying to keep their militia skills sharp.  Now they can finally go outside and get some fresh air and stop bumping into each other.  

How many Pooplei will fit on the head of a pin? If you don't answer I will fall apart and alter your beliefs for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

That's ok, I will take your silence and refusal to answer as direct corroboration that you finally agree with me that gun rights are lawful both indoors and outdoors.  

Which is a really good thing too...... cause Boudreau and the boyz down on the Bayou were getting tired of marching around in Thibodeaux's living room trying to keep their militia skills sharp.  Now they can finally go outside and get some fresh air and stop bumping into each other.  

Yes, I have changed my mind about outdoor gun rights now that have you pointed out the flaw in my original thinking.  The brilliance of Justice Scalia's argument is unmatched.  Thank you for bringing that to my attention.  I can finally sleep at night now.  Oh and bye the way old mate - not only are you my intellectual superior, but I find you to be an incredibly handsome and virile man, and not in a gay way either.  NTTAWWT.  

Fixed.  And you're welcome.  :lol:

Share this post


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

How many Pooplei will fit on the head of a pin?  If you don't answer I will fall apart and alter your posts for you.

 

Share this post


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

You continue to quote the Wrenn dissent.   The dissent means that opinion lost, therefore it is not valid except only to you sore losers who cannot let go of the notion of only indoor gun rights and indoor militias.  Dissent = loser.

Here, we face together a grand battle of ideas. I got my butt kicked by Wrenn, which is a wonderful victory for gun rights in the USA. I must congratulate you, and join the wonderful insights the majority has presented. I'm still waiting for the details, but bpm57 is a whiz at the case, he tells us.

Yes I got my butt kicked, and then I presented the key, intelligent ideas in an enjoyable dissent. Our discussion about shall issue shall return. And in the meantime, the entire historical angle, the "inexhaustive" study having been admitted by both Heller and Wrenn, looms large IMO.

BIG PIC: you are now in a face-off with castle doctrine itself. And you won a round. To be continued.

Share this post


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

(to Pooplius Propagandus I) I found the history snippets you presented to Elle, back in the days you would discuss the specifics of history.

There were two. The second introduced race affirmatively into the GVP struggle...in five or six ways.

Tom, are you something of a champion in the struggle for racial understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sheesh Joe,

You're flailing,,

, take a breath,  relax a bit.

 

Maybe a wolf hunt in Wyoming would give a fresh perspective ,

 

 , don't forget your Marlin.

Share this post


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

You may discover someday that yes-or-no formats have limited applications.

I'm quite aware of the limitations, Joe. However, when I ask "are _you_", I'm not asking the opinion of someone else, I'm asking for yours. _Your_ opinion doesn't require footnotes; it is just yours...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

Tom, 

I will pay you $500 for the assault .22 just to get you to shut the fuck up about it.  You have to promise to never post on any gun-related thread/post on this site as part of the deal,  Failure to do so will result in your left testicle (assuming you have one...not clear you have any based on your posts) being shot off by said assault rifle.  If you don't accept my offer, please shut the fuck up about a .22 none of us care about.  

 


No. It's not just the gun I want to give to my grandson, but also the freedom to own such powerful weapons.

I don't think this should be the last generation of Floridians to legally own battelfield .22's like mine.

I'll shut up about it if grabberz in our legislature ever agree. I hope for that day too. But I'm not holding my breath. As you can see, no grabberz here think there's anything wrong with this proposal. They just mostly think there's something wrong with me for not wanting to be part of the last generation to own battlefield .22's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone here $peak to the legislators who keep proposing to ban and confiscate my gun and a$k them to $hut up?

My silence can't be bought, but I'm not a politician. Perhaps barking up the wrong tree, Cal20?

Share this post


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


No. It's not just the gun I want to give to my grandson, but also the freedom to own such powerful weapons.

I don't think this should be the last generation of Floridians to legally own battelfield .22's like mine.

I'll shut up about it if grabberz in our legislature ever agree. I hope for that day too. But I'm not holding my breath. As you can see, no grabberz here think there's anything wrong with this proposal. They just mostly think there's something wrong with me for not wanting to be part of the last generation to own battlefield .22's.

You missed the point. Instead, you levered the request to STFU about your over-extended talking point. Is this what round four looks like, Pooplius? In the vast excitement of first amendment potential on PA, here we rest with ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2018 at 4:40 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

You completely sidestepped the point I made and avoided addressing them.

Well, you forgot his other option, which is to string together impressive sounding words - but the result comes out like a bad google translation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2018 at 6:44 AM, jocal505 said:

Here, we face together a grand battle of ideas. I got my butt kicked by Wrenn, which is a wonderful victory for gun rights in the USA. I must congratulate you, and join the wonderful insights the majority has presented. I'm still waiting for the details, but bpm57 is a whiz at the case, he tells us.

Yes I got my butt kicked, and then I presented the key, intelligent ideas in an enjoyable dissent. Our discussion about shall issue shall return. And in the meantime, the entire historical angle, the "inexhaustive" study having been admitted by both Heller and Wrenn, looms large IMO.

BIG PIC: you are now in a face-off with castle doctrine itself. And you won a round. To be continued.

You claim to know all, Joe. Why don't you tell us all of the major issues with the Wrenn majority decision.

Share this post


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

You claim to know all, Joe. Why don't you tell us all of the major issues with the Wrenn majority decision.

Are you a Tom Palmer fan, bpm? Did CATO just build Wrenn?

I mentioned two issues (incomplete history and the core right now being hearth and hone), then you evaporated. What we need is a presentation of Wrenn's strengths, from someone who understands it and appreciates it. Your turn.

Share this post


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

the core right now being hearth and hone

According to a dissent, anyway. Sorry to break it to you, a dissent doesn't set precedent.

Joe, why is it that any case that involves CATO, SAF, GOA, or the NRA is made to sound like it is some evil conspiracy, yet the involvement of Bloomberg's alphabet soup of groups is never cast in the same tone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites