Sign in to follow this  
Hypercapnic Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

Uncooperative Californicators

Quote

 

Sweeping new gun laws passed last year by California voters and legislators require those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to get rid of them by July 1.
The question is: How many of California’s 6 million-plus gun owners are actually going to comply, even though violators face potential jail time if they’re caught?
Talk to gun owners, retailers and pro-gun sheriffs across California and you’ll get something akin to an eye roll when they’re asked if gun owners are going to voluntarily part with their property because Democratic politicians and voters who favor gun control outnumber them and changed the law.

 

Only a couple more days for gun owners to comply and I doubt the attitude will change.

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Quote

Even the staunchest pro-gun sheriffs, including Bosenko, the Shasta County sheriff, say they’ll be more than happy to tack a magazine-possession charge on to a drug dealer’s or a gang member’s rap sheet should deputies catch them with a high-capacity magazine.

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

Share this post


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

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

This is usually what seems to happen. I've felt for a long time that the 'possession' laws are really just a quick bypass to lock people up when they - the police - don't really have evidence to prosecute the crime they were ACTUALLY arrested for.  It's cheaper and faster.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too.

 

Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry.

Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.

Quote

(Post 65), Tom Ray asks Woofsey) Does Billy have a right to his rifle, including the standard capacity magazine, Mike?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld.

See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. Check out how Tom presented the major development to our community, after three years of Tom's polemic. (His disinformation evolved into the idea that this court decision was a victory against seven round limits. Such is whimpering.)

Tom got pounded off Billy's Stoopid Law thread not long ago, in Dec, 2016.  Kolbe vs Kogan removed constitutional protection from AW's three months later. Let's discuss weapons "in lawful use at the time", shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - let's discuss instead that you are trying to use semantics to further your own position that guns are evil, and that anything that can be done to limit their availability is a step worth taking.  

None of your drivel beyond that is worth discussing, because it's all tangential to your main point: Get rid of all the guns while trying to pretend that you're not. 

I wish this "show notifications" button kept people on ignore on ignore... 

Share this post


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

JoCal - let's discuss instead that you are trying to use semantics to further your own position that guns are evil, and that anything that can be done to limit their availability is a step worth taking.  

None of your drivel beyond that is worth discussing, because it's all tangential to your main point: Get rid of all the guns while trying to pretend that you're not. 

I wish this "show notifications" button kept people on ignore on ignore... 

Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity. 

Share this post


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

Weak, and like a chickenshit from a duck blind. I never use semantics. WTF> I use peer-reviewed research, vetted scholarship, and tenacity. 

Of course you do... as long as that research appears to support your personal notion that firearms are bad, and that bad people won't be as bad if guns aren't around, while refusing to discuss anything having to do with causality.  Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?  
"Chicago's only bad because people can get guns someplace else and bring them into the city limits"?   

Please - keep flailing away, it's entertaining, and provides a wonderful example of how prohibitionists think. 

 

Share this post


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

Of course you do... as long as that research appears to support your personal notion that firearms are bad, and that bad people won't be as bad if guns aren't around, while refusing to discuss anything having to do with causality.  Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?  
"Chicago's only bad because people can get guns someplace else and bring them into the city limits"?   

Please - keep flailing away, it's entertaining, and provides a wonderful example of how prohibitionists think. 

 

An ad hominem. Hmmm. No example of semantics. hmmm.

If you have better research, you sure haven't presented any. You are not prepared for this discussion. I have presented a variety of unimopeachable sources, in a body of work with a consistent conclusion.

You are made of air and bondo, Guy Where is any source supporting your claim that the U.S. has an abnormal violence index? We don't. We have guns everywhere, and logic which justifies their use when disagreements occur. We have a lethally violent outcome, but our kids don't scuffle 19.5 times more than other leading nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 Random posted a chart - tell us what that chart says to you?

Not much. It means that sailing sheep on Political Anarchy will follow Tom Ray's misrepresentations.

It's a useless fabrication, and tellingly, no effort to improve it was undertaken. Tom Ray is another intellectual heavyweight around here

 

Your turn. What does this chart mean to you?

Quote

 

Share this post


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

I read everything Gandhi wrote at age 13. I had a bicycle and a library card, didn't I?

Share this post


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

Sorry Jo, that doesnt answer the question

Read SAILING ANARCHY.  My candid, non-gamey posts have dwelt upon your question on PA for six years.

Share this post


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

If seven round limits are "unconstitutional", as we've heard, then these LCMs and AWs will soon be "unconstitutional" too.

 

Laws signal the intention of the courts, and the acceptability or non-acceptability of behavior. Laws are a signal of the direction of the social contract which binds society. The respect for our system is what maintains social order, not weaponry.

Tom's link goes to the Stoopid Law thread, where his ass was handed to him.

 

Our system maintains social order for those who respect the system.  Weapons maint social order of those who don't respect our system.

Share this post


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

Crickets.....

Pathetic........

If you have to ask whether I grasp nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience, you haven't taken my pulse, or the pulse of MLK. So I have nothing to discuss with you on the subject.

All yes or no questions should be referred to Jeffie, they are his forte. Good luck, the Cuntfinder has been AWOL for one week, but you can leave a message with Pee Wee. Want to see Pee Wee?

Share this post


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

Our system maintains social order for those who respect the system.  Weapons maint social order of those who don't respect our system.

Really? When and where? Is that for you to say?

 King George and Henry VIII were both dumbasses, and they figured shit better than you.  Show me some due process, mate..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gree2056 said:

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.

Share this post


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

Really? When and where? Is that for you to say?

 King George and Henry VIII were both dumbasses, and they figured shit better than you.  Show me some due process, mate..

All over. All the time.

you are small minded.  Not a big picture person. 

The most obvious is areas of high rates of violent crime.  Why does it continue to occur there and and not other places?  think about it from a modern perspective.

Share this post


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

Hey Tom,

I am still waiting for an explanation of what your favourite table means, I asked ages ago.

brady-vs-census.jpg

You asked me what the census used as their definition of "violent crime" and when I didn't know you said their stats were "debunked" which is about the level of scientific knowledge I'd expect from a guy like you who believes crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Share this post


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

This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld.

See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. ..

 

When are you going to start getting basic facts right?

In NY, the legislature used emergency rules to bypass debate and pass the SAFE Act. But NY is not CT. The confiscation program in CT was not passed using emergency rules.

Share this post


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

You asked me what the census used as their definition of "violent crime" and when I didn't know you said their stats were "debunked" which is about the level of scientific knowledge I'd expect from a guy like you who believes crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11.

This thing was bullshit, Tom. It  appeared frequently. It had your name all over it. You own this Tom Ray garbage.

Share this post


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

When are you going to start getting basic facts right?

In NY, the legislature used emergency rules to bypass debate and pass the SAFE Act. But NY is not CT. The confiscation program in CT was not passed using emergency rules.

Thanks for the correction of minor, inconsequential details, Tom. The Circuit Court in that region combines both NY and CT. And it supported both laws after review, and long after any Sandy Hook "do something" panic. This is the law of the land now.  

You rode into the sunset, singing a Libertarian ditty. Your cheap jingo was to equate the AW ban to a victory over seven round limits. You lost big, posted a dishonest and incomplete account for the cheap seaters, and slithered away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gree2056 said:

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.

Help me out. Am I reading your words correctly?

I want to know how the hell this works. CA officers hop out of bed in the morning, execute some means to hide personal AW's in CA, then roll out to fail to enforce the CA law on their beats, based on personal interpretations of constitutionality. Did I sum up Officer Green's POV correctly?

 

Oswald for Boothy.PNG

Share this post


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

You posted it as supposed proof that more guns do not kill more people.  When I asked you to explaining the table you had no idea how those numbers were defined.  But that did not stop you from repeatedly posting it.

You still have no idea, but you still defend it because it looks 'sciencey' but it complete fabricated bullshit, like everything else you post.

I submitted this Your Honour, as evidence for the prosecution that Tom Ray knowingly posts misinformation, he is a disinformation agent for the gun lobby as this proves.  I rest my case.

Exhibit 2,673

Quote

Post 163, Highland Park Thread

 On 5/27/2015 at 1:34 AM, Tom Ray said: No, I have never advocated arming anyone

After hard work telling falsehoods all day, Tom relaxes at night mis-quoting case law, tossing racial zingers, and protecting grannie's AW.  I wonder about the Pooplius thought process now; The Tom Ray thread features a few collections of past fibs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because random says so. Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

Share this post


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

Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because random says so. Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

You are such a dumbshit that your handiwork factors strangulations and poisonings against gun violence laws. Jesus Christ, Tom, try slinking away, or mentioning confiscation or something. You can't defend such a piece of shit as Brady's Best. Be classy like Arthur Kellerman was, and fix the thing, before cherry picking it into nonsense.

1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

What a petty little man. Hide the junior sailors in the local bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncooperative Federal Judge

Quote

 

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.


 


We know from proposals in NY, WA, FL, and elsewhere that the real number that currently defines a "high" capacity magazine is seven, not ten. But that's only because they haven't tried five yet.

Share this post


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

And what of your lies jocal?  

Let's see documentation of any falsehoods. That's how we do it here.

Share this post


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

The Supreme Court does

(Moderate is responding here to Jocal to V Green: This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.

Wrong. Supreme Court didn't determine squat over Peruta vs San Diego last week, did it? After mulling for 11 weels.  Did they accept Drake vs Jejerian? Neither. Until they loosen gun laws more, assuming they do, the circuit court rulings are the law of the land.

We're discussing AW's, right? The SC only handles contrasting circuit court rulings. There are NO favorable rulings to contrast the four circuits which banned "Modern Sporting Rifles." How long will it take to get to the SC? Some while. And the evidence against AW's will probably compile, not diminish. in the interim.

The courts are not dazzled by bumper stickers, or by distractions on the third grader trail.

Share this post


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

Still waiting Tom old mate.

Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge's injunction mentioned above.
 

Quote

 

As the Supreme Court recognized a decade before Heller, “[g]uns in general are not ‘deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials.’” Staples v. United States

...

  It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

 

The part at the end on takings was interesting. Even if the court accepts the "dubious" claim that the banned magazines are a public nuisance, he makes the case that Cooperative Californicators who turn in their magazines should be compensated.

Quote

In a similar vein, the Supreme Court holds that a law enacted pursuant to the state’s “police powers to enjoin a property owner from activities akin to public nuisances” is not immune from scrutiny under the regulatory takings doctrine.  Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003, 1020-27 (1992).  The Court reasoned that it was true “[a] fortiori” that the “legislature’s recitation of a noxious-use justification cannot be the basis for departing from our categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated.”

There are other cases cited saying that banning "dangerous" guns is not a taking that must be compensated but those cases are different because they're not about the state taking away arms that are currently legally owned.

Share this post


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

The judge's injunction mentioned above.
 

The part at the end on takings was interesting. Even if the court accepts the "dubious" claim that the banned magazines are a public nuisance, he makes the case that Cooperative Californicators who turn in their magazines should be compensated.

"dubious"     Remove the quotations.

You read some court briefs, don'tcha Tom? You claim to. Most of the briefs about LCM's document the running, measurable social danger of these devices. The judges note the predominant numbers as evidence, discuss the angles, then justify restricting LCM's based on that. Even Mother Jones is quoted by these judges. No doubt is involved when one looks at the pattern and outcomes.

Quote

There are other cases cited saying that banning "dangerous" guns is not a taking that must be compensated but those cases are different because they're not about the state taking away arms that are currently legally owned

"dangerous"   Remove the quotations. One AW court ruled that the public fear alone, public perception, justified banning the guns. 

Quote

 Yet may an affray be without worde or blow given as if a man shall sh[o]w himself furnished with armour or weapon, which is not usually worne and borne, it will strike a feare to others that be not armed as he is: and therefore both the Statute of Northampton . . . made against the wearing of Armour and weapon and the Writte thereupon grounded, doe speake of it, by the words, effrey del pays , an, in terrorem populi .23

More disinformation. Are you taking the position that AW guns and LCM's are not dangerous? What about the facts and occurances in the briefs in the four circuit courts which banned AW's for cause? Should we review that, long text? 

 

As to your compensation plea, you have a point. But let me summarize what happened here.

The gun lobby had poor sales, so in the eighties they began hyping the general public into buying AW's. Individuals of a certain elk herd bought millions of them, until 1% of the population (a minority) owned three each. Note: Jeffie owns dozens of LCM's.

 Unrelated personal angst factors developed, and the battle guns began to be turned on the public during personal grievances or personal aggravation. Informed areas began to control the dangerous devices. Citizens were faced with becoming part of the solution, for the benefit of the broader society. The elk herd with the AW's,  consumers composing 1% of the elk, wanted their money back, from the endangered 99% of the herd.

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

 

Share this post


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

Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.

Here's the thread.  Your children and your mother must be proud.

Your response to random's exposure of Brady's Best was to re-quote your own race-baiting. You offered the Black Panthers, Judge Taney, and MLK's church in ONE post. It was ten weeks before Dylann Roof. You spent those weeks race-baiting gleefully, on two threads.

I have displayed the future, if we use the wisdom of my favorite libertarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This law obviously infringes on the right to keep and bear arms . 

Share this post


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

...Are you taking the position that AW guns and LCM's are not dangerous? ..

 

Among others, yes. No more dangerous than other guns.

Specifically, I'm taking the position that neither of our .22's are "battlefield weapons," as you call them, because I've never heard of one being on a battlefield nor being issued to a soldier.

Yes, they could be used to kill. If lethality is the standard, we can skip right to soak-ed's position of banning all non-government guns.

I think you get to the same result either way. Calling ordinary guns "assault weapons" first is just a bit less honest than Ed's approach.

Share this post


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

Among others, yes. No more dangerous than other guns. YOU ARE LYING TOM. AW'S ARE SO DANGEROUS THAT HIGHER COURTS BAN THEM.

Specifically, I'm taking the position that neither of our .22's are "battlefield weapons," as you call them, because I've never heard of one being on a battlefield nor being issued to a soldier.

Yes, they could be used to kill. If lethality is the standard, we can skip right to soak-ed's position of banning all non-government guns.

I think you get to the same result either way. Calling ordinary guns "assault weapons" first is just a bit less honest than Ed's approach.

 

Quote

"battlefield weapons," as you call them

I am cutting edge, I guess. I used the term first, then the Fourth CIrcuit concurred with me, firmly. They make AW's "unconstitutional." (to use the terminology of Poplius, LOL.)

Basically, your argument is to conflate target shooting guns with guns designed for battle. This is self-inflictedTR confusion. Again, the pattern here is applied dishonesty.

Did you read any recent court cases? You need to explain why four federal appeals courts have benned AW's, but none have banned tube feeder .22's.  

Share this post


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

This law obviously infringes on the right to keep and bear arms . 

Talk to Scalia, Gouv. He approved half a dozen infringements within Heller. The other courts are building on Scalia's fine work.

Share this post


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

 

I am cutting edge, I guess. I used the term first, then the Fourth CIrcuit concurred with me, firmly. They make AW's "unconstitutional." (to use the terminology of Poplius, LOL.)

Basically, your argument is to conflate target shooting guns with guns designed for battle. This is self-inflictedTR confusion. Again, the pattern here is applied dishonesty.

Did you read any recent court cases? You need to explain why four federal appeals courts have benned AW's, but none have banned tube feeder .22's.  

I can't help it that the term "assault weapons" is defined to include two of our .22's, only one of which is tube-fed, as you well know.

You already explained why the court rulings apply to my wife's Ruger 10-22. It's a scary AW with an LCM!! Like an M-16! Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go wank in front of someone else. Your thread content needs substance someday.

Share this post


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

Talk to Scalia, Gouv. He approved half a dozen infringements within Heller. The other courts are building on Scalia's fine work.

If I lived in CA I would purchase the appropriate arms, call the various media, and announce it.

i would happily go through the court system explaining to each judge what infringe means.

if people want to enact laws about arms those people need to either amend the Constitution or move to a country where infringement is allowed. 

Share this post


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

If I lived in CA I would purchase the appropriate arms, call the various media, and announce it.

i would happily go through the court system explaining to each judge what infringe means.

if people want to enact laws about arms those people need to either amend the Constitution or move to a country where infringement is allowed. 

You would school them indeed. Then find that that particular horse left the barn long ago, headed in a certain direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2017 at 5:53 AM, jocal505 said:

Go wank in front of someone else. Your thread content needs substance someday.

You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

Quote

from the standpoint of political symbolism, having a fight on the implementation is a plus for the people who passed the law, not a minus.

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

Share this post


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

You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?

Is your mind in a rut, Tom?  This claptrap ^^^ surfaced the first week of Dec. 2016. Seven months of this pablum?  You embarass yourself, shamelessly. It's just sad, and revealing, that you have nothing intelligent and worthy to contribute... as the upper courts identify you as a hollow pariah.

Up your game. Please respond to the scholarship in play in the matter within the OP.

Quote

The Second Amendment in Historiographical Crisis: Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward 

Source: Patrick Charles, a patient, careful scholar quoted in Heller and MacDonald

In Part I, this Article exposes the Standard Model for what it is not—an objective and thoroughly researched history. It identifies four unquestioned historical methodologies to which the Model has failed to adhere and how one poor account has been built upon another, which ultimately has made the “modern” Second Amendment unrecognizable to the founding generation.

 

Part II then summarizes why historians view the Standard Model as nothing short of a historical embarrassment. In particular, Part II focuses on the rise and fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s work on the right to arms. It then illustrates the interpretative consequences that Malcolm and other Standard Model accounts have had on the AngloAmerican understanding of the right to arms.

 

Lastly, Part III discusses the prudential reasons for reevaluating the Standard Model. In particular, it weighs three historical options that the Supreme Court could adopt for adjudicating future Second Amendment cases and controversies. It then concludes that there is a simple and reasonable construct available to the Court when weighing history. Known as a “historical guidepost” approach, the construct not only ensures the preservation of our history in context, but also allows for constitutional jurisprudence to evolve in the process.

 

Share this post


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

Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

No one wants your guns. There's a nice little shop not far from the office. Still in business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on out Tom. We can go look at some gunz you can buy here.

Share this post


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

Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

"Nobody wants to take your non-LCM guns."  

99% of U.S. citizens would be unaffected by such a ban. 1% would give up three AW's each...

You have some social adjustments to make. Bans like this have been supported in upper court appeals. Such bans never been opposed by circuit courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Come on out Tom. We can go look at some gunz you can buy here.

Why would I be interested in the neutered guns that are legal in California?

We're allowed to have standard capacity magazines with ordinary magazine release buttons here.

And our government has not yet made possession of legal guns a felony like yours has. Cling to the "no one wants your guns" line if you must but when they make it a felony to keep them instead of handing them over to the state, that makes it seem just a bit to me like they want to confiscate guns.

Share this post


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

Why would I be interested in the neutered guns that are legal in California?

We're allowed to have standard capacity magazines with ordinary magazine release buttons here.

And our government has not yet made possession of legal guns a felony like yours has. Cling to the "no one wants your guns" line if you must but when they make it a felony to keep them instead of handing them over to the state, that makes it seem just a bit to me like they want to confiscate guns.

1.Why would you be interested in WA state laws, as they apply in FL?

2. These AW guns and LCM's are no longer legal, and never were in common use. Life is a progression, mate. 

3. "They" only need to confiscate battle-bred weaponry. Not all guns.

Gun Grabber Boogaloo.PNG

Share this post


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

 

 

3. "They" only need to confiscate battle-bred weaponry. Not all guns.

 

Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

Share this post


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

Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

Share this post


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

You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

Liars?

 

Share this post


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

You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

Same issue as always. Restrict means confiscate and we don't want our guns taken. Not even the battlefield .22's.

Share this post


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

You know a great deal about lies Tom, everyone should listen to you ... or maybe they shouldn't because, ah never mind.

This is how Tom quotes an honest nemesis:

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Liars?

 

Votes don't lie, the votes follow personal perceptions about personal safety. You just provided a falsehood.

Share this post


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

Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

It's ok Tom, we don't really want you out here anyway. We'll live in our "neutered" gun society, just fine, thankyouverymuch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It's ok Tom, we don't really want you out here anyway. We'll live in our "neutered" gun society, just fine, thankyouverymuch

Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, random said:

...please link for the rest of us where you think I said that.

 

Linky or it's stinky!

 

 

On 6/15/2017 at 6:49 PM, random said:

So you disagree with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

What qualifications do you have in this area?


But we should really take that discussion to the thread you suggested on the subject.

Share this post


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

Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 

If a gun doesn't take an LCM, it is a "neutered" gun. That would be a big fat lie, within a stream of lies.

 

11 hours ago, random said:

Tom's fucking scared.  He is so scared of the slaves revolting that he and his family must have a loaded weapon within reach at all times.  His wife has one.

Must be a cunt to live like that.

Tom's mom has a gun, too. Randy Weaver moves to FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 3:15 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Uncooperative Californicators

Only a couple more days for gun owners to comply and I doubt the attitude will change.

Just as in Hartford, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth when Uncooperative gun owners decide not to comply with the confiscation program.

Some other things never change:

Because locking more people up for longer is going to start working really, really soon and we'll get tired of winning the drug war. "Pro-gun" sheriff's happily enforce a stupid gun control law and then wonder how we get more of them.

 

 

This law is a signal of the desired behavior within CA communities, innit? But you don't  personally care for this law. Your lack of respect for the legal fabric (the constitution, that is) which formed the law is showing. You would rather be criminally-inclined, while spouting cherry-picked bits of the constitution. 

So far, you have applauded criminals, and coached others to become felons for your cause, in CT, NY, FL, NC, and CA. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 3:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?

Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

Share this post


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

Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

Please post a link to that event.  I would like to read that for myself.  - Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, F395 said:

Please post a link to that event.  I would like to read that for myself.  - Thank you!

I posted the incident twice, with white noise in the background. Thanks for your interest and awareness.

 

Share this post


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

Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

May I present...the piper.

Tom Ray, Pied Piper.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 10:11 AM, Raz'r said:

No one wants your guns. ...

Or...

17 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Say, if someone wants to break the law, I guess that's their choice. They may have to pay some serious consequences. Oh well, they makes their choices, they gets to pay the piper.

By "breaking the law" you mean "keeping their guns" so how you can claim no one wants them is beyond belief. The people who made them illegal clearly want them. That's why they made it a felony to keep them.

Share this post


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

Asked and answered.

After the honest answer, a wild off-road excursion occurred. Now you want to do it again.

As posted, five people were massacred with an LCM-equipped .22 here in WA. This is a touchy, deadly subject, not a matter for light-hearted repartee...for seven months. Want me to get cutesy about Misty for seven months? Want to extend the MLK discussion?

 

So were they killed on a battlefield? I mean, it's a battlefield weapon, right?

Share this post


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

Hey Tom, how many guns do you have?  I've got this theory that there is a relationship between the number of guns you have in your house and how fucking scared you are.  Help me out.

I've got this theory that there's a relationship between whether you'll post under your real name and how fucking scared you are.

Let's test the theory. What's your real name?

Share this post


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

Are you trying to Out me Tom?  ..

No, just testing whether you had the courage to out yourself.

The results were as expected. Unlike me, you won't stand by your own words in a public way because you're scared to do it.

Share this post


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

Or...

By "breaking the law" you mean "keeping their guns" so how you can claim no one wants them is beyond belief. The people who made them illegal clearly want them. That's why they made it a felony to keep them.

You clearly have issues with personal rights being regulated. Maybe you shouldn't have advocated for it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You clearly have issues with personal rights being regulated. Maybe you shouldn't have advocated for it in the first place.

I'd say regulated rights beat none at all. I have no issue with the judge's injunction saying that certain policy choices are off the table. How about you?

Share this post


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

So were they killed on a battlefield? I mean, it's a battlefield weapon, right?

Try to keep up. After the Heller decision, Dick wanted LCM's too, but the D.C. court tossed him out. (He subsequently lost Heller III too.) This LCM issue was faced elsewhere, as well.

Quote

...Plaintiffs in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, tried unsuccessfully to argue that the ordinance violated Second Amendment rights, but after carefully weighing the evidence from both sides, Judge Darrah firmly disagreed. “The record is clear,” he wrote, “that the features of the prohibited firearms, including LCMs, derive from military weapons with a decidedly offensive purpose of quickly acquiring multiple targets and firing at those targets without a frequent need to reload.” In light of their deadly nature, the judge concluded that prohibiting assault weapons and LCMs is a reasonable way to protect public safety without unconstitutionally burdening self-defense rights.

This outcome marks the tenth major court victory for common sense gun laws in 2014The encouraging truth is that Second Amendment victories in the courts greatly outnumber the few defeats. In over 900 cases tracked by the Law Center since the landmark Heller decision in 2008, courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to reasonable gun regulations 96 percent of the time.

http://smartgunlaws.org/with-increasing-number-of-court-victories-2014-shaping-into-big-year-for-gun-sense-in-the-courts/

 

 

1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

You clearly have issues with personal rights being regulated. Maybe you shouldn't have advocated for it in the first place.

Elle tried to school Tom Ray about this two months after Sandy Hook.  Tom was too giddy to sit still in class.

Quote
 On 2/18/2013 at 2:40 PM, elle said: tom....did you or did you not write that you believe the core lawful purpose of the second amendment is to protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense?

Tom: I did.  (...)

elle: ok i disagree with you...i believe the core purpose is (the following part you wrote) to prevent the government from disarming the people.

if you continue to insist it is the first part and not the second part you make is soooo much easier for the government to remove your right to do so.

 

Share this post


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

Try to keep up. After the Heller decision, Dick wanted LCM's too, but the D.C. court tossed him out. (He subsequently lost Heller III too.) This LCM issue was faced elsewhere, as well.

 

 

Elle tried to school Tom Ray about this two months after Sandy Hook.  Tom was too giddy to sit still in class.

 

Elle is definitely more eloquent than I am...

Share this post


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

Try to keep up. After the Heller decision, Dick wanted LCM's too...

 

So anything with a standard capacity magazine is a battlefield gun that must be banned, even if it's a .22 that has never been seen on a battlefield.

Or maybe...

Quote

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

 

Share this post


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

So anything with a standard capacity magazine is a battlefield gun that must be banned, even if it's a .22 that has never been seen on a battlefield.

Or maybe...

 

The public safety is not off the table. It is in the crosshairs of certain weapons of choice.

Setting public safety aside, the terror or the population needs to be considered. You flaunt battle guns as normal. Naturally, people react to the battle guns, which aren't normal or in common use if only 1% of the population owns them.

Values slip a bit while normal people adapt to the terror. Larry Pratt is selling a new normal, an ab-normal.

Quote

“[t]he offence of riding or going armed , with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton . . . .”14  Blackstone

 

Share this post


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

So anything with a standard capacity magazine is a battlefield gun that must be banned, even if it's a .22 that has never been seen on a battlefield.

Or maybe...

 

You sold your bullshit militia rights for bullshit "self defense" rights. Now please source any such rights. 

I've been doing some reading.There is so such right. if folded into civic authority. There never have been such rights.  Your libertarian girl Joyce Lee Malcolm was making shit up. SHe's a shill, Tom.

Quote

FOLLOW THE CASH ON THE LIBERTARIAN UNICORN

29. See Amicus Brief of Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Petitioners at 15-17, Kachalsky v. Cacace, 133 S. Ct. 1806 (2013) (No. 12-845), 2013 WL 127179 (discussing how this author’s interpretation of the Statute of Northampton is wrong on these grounds).  It is worth noting that the National Rifle Association funds and supports Academics for the Second Amendment.

I can cite my position. My thanks to Professor Patrick J. Charles. He's an Air Force officer and historian. And he documents and supports individual rights. However, his dedication has been to debunk lousy FF history about gun rights. The man lacks hubris and contains content.

Quote

Let's Fly The Libertarian Unicorn Over Any Library...

or The Unbroken Timeline of Gun Control: the Evolution of the Statute of Northampton

(Pre-statute legal development had occurred, based on problematic.weapons behavior)

1329 Statute of Northampton recorded, weapon control text elsewhere

(1419) “no one, of whatever condition he be, go armed . . . , or carry arms, by day or night, except the vadlets of the great lord of the land . . . , and the serjeants-at-arms . . . , and the officers of the City, and such persons as shall come in their company in aid of them, at their command, for saving and maintaining the peace.”21 

(1576) Yet may an affray be without worde or blow given as if a man shall sh[o]w himself furnished with armour or weapon, which is not usually worne and borne, it will strike a feare to others that be not armed as he is: and therefore both the Statute of Northampton . . . made against the wearing of Armour and weapon and the Writte thereupon grounded, doe speake of it, by the words, effrey del pays , an, in terrorem populi .23  Source: Lombarde

(1602) f any person whatsoever (except the Queenes servants and ministers in her presence, or in executing her precepts, or other offices, or such as shall assist them: and except it be upon Hue and Crie made to keep the peace, and that in places where acts against the Peace do happen) shall be so bold, as to go, or ride armed, by night, or by day, in Faires, Markets, or any other places: then any Constable, or any other of the saide Officers, may take such Armour from him, for the Queenes use, & may also commit him to the Gaole.  And therefore, it shall be good in this behalf, for the Officers to stay and arrest all such persons as they shall find to carry Dags or Pistols, or to be appareled with privie coates, or doublets: as by the proclamation [of Queen Elizabeth I] . . . .24  WILLIAM LAMBARDE, THE DUTIES OF CONSTABLES, BORSHOLDERS, TYTHINGMEN, AND SUCH OTHER LOW AND LAY MINISTERS OF THE PEACE 13-14 (London, Thomas Wight 1602).   

(1619) If any person shall ride or goe armed offensively, before the Justices, or any other the Kings officers; Or in Faires, Markets, or elsewhere (by night, or by day) in affray of the Kings people (the Sheriffe, and other the Kings Officers, and) every Justice of the peace . . . may cause them to be stayed and arrested, & may binde all such to the peace, or good behaviour . . . And the said Justices of the P. (as also every Constable) may seize & take away their Armour, and other weapons . . . .  So of such as shall carry any Daggs or Pistols that be charged: or that shall goe appareled with privie Coats or Doublets . . . .  And yet the Kings servants in his presence; and Sheriffes and their officers, in executing the Kings processe, and all others in pursuing the Hue and Crie, where any felony, or other offences be done, may lawfully beare Armour or weapons.28

(Coke, 1644) (“But he cannot assemble force, though he be extreamly threatned, to goe with him to Church, or market, or any other place, but that is prohibited by this Act.”). 

(1660)  “Any (except the Kings Officers and their companie doing their service) riding or going armed, or bringing force in affray of the people, are to be imprisoned, and lose their armour.”49 

(1736) “may take away Arms from such who ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People, and may apprehend the Persons, and carry them, and their Arms, before a Justice of the Peace.”62 

(1774) “Justices of the Peace . . . may apprehend any Person who shall go or ride armed with unusual and offensive Weapons, in an Affray, or among any great Concourse of the People . . . .”61 

George Webb’s 1736 treatise, published four decades earlier, similarly drew upon Dalton (1618), stipulating that constables  (1736) “may take away Arms from such who ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People, and may apprehend the Persons, and carry them, and their Arms, before a Justice of the Peace.”62 

(1789 Blackstone) [t]he offence of riding or going armed , with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton . . . .”14  

(1792)  “all affrayers, rioters, disturbers, or breakers of the peace, and such as shall ride or go armed offensively, to the fear or terror of the good citizens of this Commonwealth.”72 

Three states adopted the Statute of Northampton wholesale. North Carolina began its statute by listing the exceptions— government officials in performance of their duty and the hue and cry—then stipulated that no one shall bring (1792) “force in an affray of peace, nor to go nor ride armed by day nor by night, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the King’s Justices, or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere . . . .”73 

(1800) riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land, and is prohibited by statute upon pain of forfeiture of the arms.”63 

http://urbanlawjournal.com/files/2013/12/Charles-Northampton-FINAL12.20.13.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even The Trace is anticipating Uncooperative Californicators
 

Quote

 

The bullet-button workaround exposes what critics say is a fatal flaw of practically any law that seeks to impose bans on certain types of weapons. Because they often target specific features of weapons — and not broad categories — the laws are vulnerable to workarounds by savvy gun manufacturers and gunsmiths. Already, there are several devices available for sale in California that seek to subvert the state’s expanded assault weapons ban.

...

The state estimates that hundreds of thousands of Californians own rifles equipped with a bullet-button device. Many more possess magazines defined by the state as high-capacity. If those individuals fail to register their weapons, or discard their magazines, they will be breaking the law.

Compliance with laws that require gun owners to register or relinquish their weapons is thought to be low. New York and Connecticut both passed similar bans on assault weapons after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a gunman killed 20 children and six educators with a rifle and high-capacity magazines. In both states, the number of firearms registered with the state is dwarfed by estimates of weapons in circulation.

 

Of course compliance is low when people are required to give up their property or sign up to have it confiscated at a later date. Heck, jocal can't even convince himself to give up his assault weapon. How's he going to convince anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rifle is not illegal. I wouldn't make myself a felon over keeping it, either.

Californians only want what Englishmen needed through the centuries---no weapons posturing or empowered bullies at the market.   

The Supreme Court has been presented with  civilized history.  The history relates that the "no weapons please" provisions of the Statute of Northampton. 450 years later, those provisions flowed nearly verbatim into two state constitutions, and directly verbatim into one.

Quote
  1. Question.  From the bench, did Blackstone quote the Statute of Northampton in 1769?
  2. Did Blackstone Support OC?
  3. Did Blackstone support CC?

I know the answers, but will entertain libertarian dogma about armed self defense. But where is Pooplius in this discussion?

 

Answer 1. Yes. Clearly and with eloquence.

Answer 2. No on OC. Pay attention. OC was what was forbidden by Northampton, No riders were to be armed. No arms allowed at  the marketplace. courts, or in other public places..

Answer 3. No on CC. Concealed weapons made the misdemeanor offense of packing a felony.

Who was Judge Blackstone? What is his importance to the founding father's elk? Why did Joyce Malcolm use Blackstone's name eighteen times in the opening pages of the Heller brief?

Quote

Wiki

(Blackstone's work was) designed to provide a complete overview of English law, the four-volume treatise was repeatedly republished in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and in a posthumous edition in 1783.

In the United States, the Commentaries influenced Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln, and remain frequently cited in Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone

 

Share this post


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

My rifle is not illegal. ...

 

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.

On 2/25/2017 at 6:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The proposed legislation is here.

 

Here is the definition:

 

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

 

 

There is no exemption to it.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.

 

You are adding to your credibility problems. We have both posted the exemption. Here it is again.

Quote

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet, "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

Let's continue inclusively, quoting lines 28-37: "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: line 37  A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T9m, it's been an eye-opener for me to see the key role of the milita to the English Parliament, and to the founding fathers. I know you feel quite bonded to the militia. But you have a goofy interpretation of self-endowed militia rights IMO. The "hue and cry" went through government channels during Colonial times.

These are tense times in CA. The thread is about massive lawbreaking which will occur in CA. For perspective, let's jump to the tensions in Shay's rebellion in colonial MASS. The militia came to the rescue, did it not?

Quote

 Take for instance the following statement, which was drafted by the Massachusetts Assembly in the midst of Shays’ Rebellion:

Whereas in a free government, where the people have a right to bear arms for the common defence, and the military power is held in subordination to the civil authority, it is necessary for the safety of the State that the virtuous citizens thereof should hold themselves in readiness, and when called upon, should exert their efforts to support the civil government , and oppose the attempts of factious and wicked men, who may wish to subvert the laws and Constitution of their country . . . .84  p1745

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

 

What was the problem? After the revolutionary war, many of the militia were BK and in foreclosure, and the peace had made many civil actions over debts active.

That militia confronting the rebels reported to state officers, with accountability to the governor and Congress, per the constitution.  The rebels had less right to confront an elected government than to attack a foreign ruler. They had no militia standing, just a mobocracy, basically. When escaping, most went North to NH, and Joyce Malcolm would mangle certain legal phrasing which resulted from their presence there.


The awesome point is that today in California, such a militia would challenge you and your boys with the illegal guns, who subvert the laws and Constitution of their country.

No Californian can be protected by the same constitutional structure which he is opposing with lawbreaking or armed force.

Lastly, if AW guns are illegal, these guns are now incriminated by, and excluded by, the Miller ruling, i.e. their use is not lawful.

 

 

Share this post


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

Even The Trace is anticipating Uncooperative Californicators
 

Of course compliance is low when people are required to give up their property or sign up to have it confiscated at a later date. Heck, jocal can't even convince himself to give up his assault weapon. How's he going to convince anyone else?

You are subverting constitutional laws, again, with Kolbe called "popularity test" constitutionality. Popularity does not drive constitutionality.

Your core of such civics is disloyal, and not sustainable. If you build a craft on a rotten keel, you will build an unseaworthy craft.

If these citizens must have their battle guns they can move to a state where AW's are more welcome. They chose felony behavior for guns instead.

 

Your mangled Miller principles now exclude these felons, since the use of the gun in CA is no longer lawful.

Share this post


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

You are adding to your credibility problems. We have both posted the exemption. Here it is again.

 

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

 

The exception, which you say doesn't exist, was posted again. The law, when presented as a whole, protects tube feeders. 

This explains why there is no alarm in the RKBA community in Washington State. Dave Workman has never mentioned the tube feeder concerns.coming from FL.

But if you want to be worked up about it, and manic for another six months, be my guest.

 

Look around. The U.S. courts seem "convinced" of my POV  since they regulate armed confrontation in 95% 0f their gun decisions.  Managing violence has a deep and successful tradition in civilized countries. Self defense is a good thing but armed self defense has been illegal since before 1385.