Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A bit of both, actually. Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do, as long as it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this:

 

That's nice. Wake me when I should get concerned.

Share this post


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

 it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this...

Federal judges say lots of stuff (and you need to cherry pick it). Such LCM's have a capacity which is opposed by four different federal districts.

Quote

 Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do...

What the hell do you expect if we taste praline and dick flavor? You make your own bed around here. Your routine lies become poison to a quality community. Two weeks ago you denied Blackstone's layout of the British right to oppose tyrants four times, in spite of quality sourcing. You trashed your creds again last week, Tom. You dis-respected yourself, IMO.

This week, you posted a innocent-looking long gun picture, failing to display the offending feature within the .22 weapon, an LCM receiver. When corrected you didn't man up. (You played boring, coy, girly games about your deception.)

"Personal attacks, waah?"? I feel I am attacking the deception, not my fellow sailor here. You are a fine fellow, I suppose, but somehow one who doesn't mind soiling himself frequently. 

 

 

Share this post


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

That's nice. Wake me when I should get concerned.

If I could wake people up and cause them to be concerned about their rights, you'd see lots of drug warriors suddenly concerned about the fourth amendment, lots of evangelicals suddenly concerned about abortion rights, and yes, lots of lefties suddenly concerned about second amendment rights.

But I can't. Only you can decide you're interested in your rights.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...
 

Quote

 

Miller implies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment. Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute the common defense, requires only a modest finding.

...

Another exhibit, the Attorney General’s Exhibit 50, appears to be a 100-page, 8-point type, 35-year survey of shooting incidents published by  Mother Jones magazine.  Oppo. Gordon Declaration at Exh. 50.  Mother Jones magazine has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence.  It is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.


 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

Share this post


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

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

Hmmpph. A manly man, no doubt. 

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

Share this post


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

Hmmpph. A manly man, no doubt. 

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

My two little ladies would have laughed their butts off at that pic.

Share this post


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

(Mother Jones) lacks some of the earmarks for the scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

Pooplius, this is the conclusion from YOUR unsourced.quote. Are you now speaking in favor of scientific presentation and conclusion?

The MIller case is not your friend, buddy. Far from it. And where is your cite? Benitez?

Share this post


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

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...
 

 

Hold on now. Back to militia? You can't have it both ways. It's either a personal right, subject to local regulation, or it's a militia clause subject to regulation as part of the state militia. 

Share this post


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

Pooplius, this is the conclusion from YOUR unsourced.quote. Are you now speaking in favor of scientific presentation and conclusion?

The MIller case is not your friend, buddy. Far from it. And where is your cite? Benitez?

Haven't you learned yet?

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You might find mention of an uncooperative federal judge. You might have been complaining about repeated mentions of him for weeks.

And, as usual, it appears you might not have read his injunction.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Hold on now. Back to militia? You can't have it both ways. It's either a personal right, subject to local regulation, or it's a militia clause subject to regulation as part of the state militia. 

The personal right and the miltia clause intersect at the people.

That's us.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Haven't you learned yet?

You want me to learn how to play hide and seek, On PA? That's not how the big boys do it.

Quote

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You are too slippery for that, buster. Still not cite, eh?

You disguise shit and mis-lable shit and misquote shit and twist shit. You directly misquoted Winkler in one link phrasing. John R. Lott 's input on may i$$ue was hiddsn "upthread, under a deceptive link phrasing:(a double deception to hide your shitty source),. That guy (your double-hidden disgraced source),.suggested background checks for voting before a Republican voting committee last week. But back to the point.

On Political Anarchy, the big boys regularly provide cites to support their positions. Especially you, Tom.

Share this post


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

The personal right and the miltia clause intersect at the people.

That's us.

Oh no you don't. What a collosal fail, because military justice is handled on an entirely different legal basis than civilian gun mayhem. Your underwear militia needs a state sponsorship and a muster, or you are civilians, in your underwear, with gunz. At home, I might add.   

What a joke. You are a delusional poser with poor reading habits, my friend. I sourced thus detail elsewhere. At least read SAILING ANARCHY dammit.

Share this post


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

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

Joe, he's calling yer ass out.

Share this post


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

Here's your cite again, Joe. So you can not read it again.

Thank you. I checked it out, there's not much there. I think you're grasping at straws. Judge Benitez may be your hero, but this is a snoozer for me, a no-brainer, since four district courts have upheld the logic of containing LCM's. (The guns they slide into are severely restricted or totally banned in eight states.)

Secondy, it's the Ninth CIrcuit, where they will never accommodate Judge Benitez, IMO.  Speaking of the Ninth Tom, what happened to your breakthrough case approving OC for AW's in the Marianas Islands?

 

Share this post


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

Joe, he's calling yer ass out.

You're pretty good, BC, you fit right in with the posers. The Gun Club Choir needs to replace choir members, you should join up. WIth you and Greever singing they have two occasional singers in the choir.

Here's a tip: Eugene Volokh will make you look really smart in that crowd...and nobody reads him.

Share this post


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

I checked it out, there's not much there.

BS. There's no more reason to believe you would actually read material I post this time than any previous time. Over several years of debate, you failed to learn the difference between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

If you had read Judge Benitez's injunction, you would probably quote some part of it with which you agree or disagree. But you didn't.

There's enough there to temporarily halt this summer's confiscation program. Which is kind of unfortunate to me. I was sorta looking forward to seeing how many Uncooperative Californians we have. I suspect it's more than the "scores of thousands" who declined to sign up to have their guns confiscated in CT.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several posters in other threads have been attempting to help Mitch find examples of previously-legal consumer products that are now illegal to possess.

The answers are revealing.

Gun ownership is pretty much like owning a slave, subjecting minor girls to sex, or possessing illegal drugs.

The last example is really the best one, and the most relevant to the judge's injunction that stopped this summer's confiscation program.

If a gun is property, there's a constitutional problem with taking it without just compensation. It's a fifth amendment problem, so Joe will probably mistake it for a fourth amendment problem again.

OTOH, if a gun is just a public nuisance, no such compensation is needed.

Needless to say, California legislators take the "public nuisance" view of exercising our rights.

So are guns property or a nuisance?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

i would say property, and just compensation is required for confiscation. But there isn't any confiscation, unless you're a felon or otherwise don't have a right to own a tool....

By "otherwise don't have a right to own a tool" do you mean "live in California" or what?

Or maybe you don't know anything about the law for which you say you voted?

The very first sentence of the Uncooperative federal judge's injunction:

Quote

On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.

Maybe you can come up with a synonym that makes you more comfortable but when you make possession a crime, it's a confiscation program to gun owners.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

By "otherwise don't have a right to own a tool" do you mean "live in California" or what?

Or maybe you don't know anything about the law for which you say you voted?

The very first sentence of the Uncooperative federal judge's injunction:

Maybe you can come up with a synonym that makes you more comfortable but when you make possession a crime, it's a confiscation program to gun owners.

It's just a well regulated society to involved citizens.

Share this post


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

It's just a well regulated society to involved citizens.

Yes, we know that grabbers mean "banned and confiscated" by "well regulated."

The good news is that most of the informed people have given up on trying to claim "no one wants your guns." Making possession illegal kind of made the intent undeniable.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a major-league whiner, Tom. You get upset by Pelleteiri's illegal gun, seven round limits in NY, the constitutional banishment of LCM's, and the fact that gun suicides are considered gun violence. You have a rich future as a whiner. I'm in a lawn chair laughing at your whole bit.

Selective confiscation will happen.  No one is here (or in any state capital) to convince you otherwise.

When are you going to explain the gun confiscation enforced by the founding fathers?

  • Shays' Rebellion
  • The Whiskey Rebellion
  • We had loyalty oaths or gun confiscation demanded in Pennsylvania and Mass. 
  • Washington had the ALL colonies disarm known Tories. They each complied.
  •  

Here's a follow-up Q.  Why was gunpowder confiscation not listed as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence? 

And another. Why are you wetting your pants about selective, legal gun confiscation? Do you think it will go away after power snivelling?

 

Share this post


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

Why are you wetting your pants about selective, legal gun confiscation?

I see you still have not read the injunction. Unsurprising.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I see you still have not read the injunction. Unsurprising.

I glanced at it from beginning to end a few times. I don't put much stock in temporary injunctions, especially in in the Ninth these days.  (I put stock in the legislative choices of Californians, in a future hopefully exposed to fewer of battlelfield guns. Did the Marianas ruling sweep the land yet?).

However, you have something to crow about with D.C.'s Wrenn/Grace outcome. Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all you guys retired?

I can't see how you all have the time to do this same shit day after everloving day.

Share this post


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

Here's something for Uncooperative Tom to mull over later this evening.

"Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices are increasingly eager to expand the scope of the Second Amendment."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/10/11/ninth_circuit_rules_there_s_no_second_amendment_right_to_sell_firearms.html


Yes, I know. I pay attention to court actions whether or not they go the way I like. Following this one on calguns.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1198255&page=6

In this case, I agree with the 9th. Enforcing zoning rules isn't really "strictly regulating gun shops." It's just regulating businesses. The idea that gun shops are exempt because of the second amendment is pretty laughably wrong to me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncooperative Americans
 

Quote

 

When in 1990 New Jersey imposed an "assault weapons" ban on the possession of semiautomatic rifles with certain cosmetic features that give them a military look, the response was underwhelming. One year later, the New York Times reported that of the estimated 100,000 to 300,000 affected weapons in the state, "Only four military-style weapons have been turned in to the State Police and another 14 were confiscated. The state knows the whereabouts of fewer than 2,000 other guns."

More recently, after 2008's Heller decision supposedly took the most draconian gun restrictions off the table by reaffirming the Second Amendment's protection of individual right to own weapons, Connecticut passed a comparatively less restrictive registration requirement. Owners responded by telling the state about their possession of "as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents," according to the Hartford Courant.

"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem," commented Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-Stafford).

New York followed up with a similar law of its own that achieved perhaps 5 percent compliance.

 

It's a struggle to get double-digit compliance rates with confiscation programs in the NE.

I'm kind of looking forward to the enforcement of this ban, should it hold up in court. I expect it will hold up in practice about as well as those other examples.

Get it through your heads, D's. We're not going to cooperate with your confiscation programs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Uncooperative Americans
 

It's a struggle to get double-digit compliance rates with confiscation programs in the NE.

I'm kind of looking forward to the enforcement of this ban, should it hold up in court. I expect it will hold up in practice about as well as those other examples.

Get it through your heads, D's. We're not going to cooperate with your confiscation programs.

Power snivelling ^^^, without the power.

You are pretty smug, as you encourage law breaking on both coasts and in between..flying in the face of the constitution. What kind of citizenry would we find in the land of CATO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncooperative, I'd hope.

Like in Washington and Colorado...
 

Quote

 

In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.

More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Uncooperative, I'd hope.

Like in Washington and Colorado...
 

 

You don't mind being the lead cheerleader for shitty civics?  You float a rotten boat, then put your elk out to sail the rotten craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 1:40 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Yes, I know. I pay attention to court actions whether or not they go the way I like. Following this one on calguns.

Nope. If you have comprehended the big pic, you have kept your thoughts to yourself. You do  not acknowledge the myriad cases lost by  CATO. There's quite a pattern in play, and it's gotta be disappointing to any Second Amendment absolutist.

Quote

Whoops, My Recent Court Failures include Highland Park, the SAFE Act, an edict for intermediate Scrutiny, by Alan Gura

Whoops, 200 gun cases, each approving gun restrictions, by Adam Winkler

Share this post


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

You don't mind being the lead cheerleader for shitty civics?  You float a rotten boat, then put your elk out to sail the rotten craft.

Nope, I don't mind a bit.

I think disobeying stupid laws is one way we change them. Nothing shitty about it, except shitty gun confiscation programs that won't work on the Uncooperative.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your guns are more important to you than your constitution. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“These aren’t the results I hoped to see. I hoped to see an effect. But it’s much more important to see what’s actually happened,” said Garen Wintemute

Keep hoping that others will cooperate with confiscation programs.

I'll keep hoping that you lead by example and get rid of your assault weapon. But you won't cooperate any more than I will.

Share this post


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

Keep hoping that others will cooperate with confiscation programs.

I'll keep hoping that you lead by example and get rid of your assault weapon. But you won't cooperate any more than I w

Dead wrong. Your statement is a lie, in fact. I intend to  break no laws, intentionally or intentionally, over gun ownership, period.

Tom,  where is your source for your Wintemute  quote? Hiding something again?

Share this post


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

Answer the question. Here it is again.

Quote

If the founding fathers could confiscate guns for a variety of reasons (including political loyalty and insurrection), what is your issue with selective confiscation today? 

 


If you ever get around to reading the injunction you might figure out the issue.

Share this post


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

Tom,  where is your source for your Wintemute  quote? Hiding something again?

If you ever develop the habit of clicking and reading links, you will quit asking for sources that have already been given.

I hope you don't. It's pretty funny. Especially when you follow it up with a post about how much you read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, hiding something. 

Gun laws define appropriate behavior to judges. They define appropriate behavior to society, too. It's interesting to me that you are taking a wedge issue here, and levering it.

Here we find you carelessly applauding gun scofflaws, the same way you applaud gun suicides. I see each instance is both an unfortunate human tragedy and as an unfortunate family tragedy. The divisive element seem to bring you joy

5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


If you ever get around to reading the injunction you might figure out the issue.

The Dorado tactic. Your position is so superior it needn't be stated.  FAIL.

Share this post


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

If you ever develop the habit of clicking and reading links, you will quit asking for sources that have already been given.

I hope you don't. It's pretty funny. Especially when you follow it up with a post about how much you read.

Panties in a bunch today?

Why would I comb through your posts for an absent source?  I lost interest with fucking squirrel activity somewhere along the way. Other worthless TR MO: compound hide and seek with John R. Lott as a source gets alternated with rick rolls to the Miller cover sheet...yet you butcher the basics of Miller.

A sharp guy like you needs to avoid hide and seek with sources on PA. So  much for your adolescent diversion, buddy.

 

 

My serious question for Tom Ray: If the founding fathers could confiscate guns for a variety of reasons (including political loyalty and insurrection), what is your issue with selective confiscation today? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whassup with 2.5 years of confiscation confusion, Tom?  Malcolm claims that fifty years of individual gun rights prevailed before our revolution. Yet such rights in 1790 were historically absent. No pamphleteers or edititorials criticized repeated powder confiscations and the breaking of gun locks by local magistrates ariound 1775.

GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A GRABBER, disarming massive numbers of Tories and Uncooperatives, eh? Do I need to document the four examples of gun confiscation again? Will the squirrels and .22's distract us another ten months?

When are you going to correct the shit you made up? 

 http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163762

Quote

Uncooperative Tom  Posted February 17, 2015

I take it from the non-answer that you can't find colonial examples of banning and confiscation of guns. Neither can I. That's not what "well regulated" meant back then, nor should it be what it means today.Post 34 Tom 2-16 Claims  the absence of "confiscation" by Colonists in the FF period.

  • Post 76 Feb. 18 Tom replies that only the British confiscated guns.
  • Post 76.  Tom adds an un-sourced history piece which coaches bringing confiscation into the FF-era gun control discussion.
  • Post 78 Feb. 21. Again, Tom brings historically false gun confiscation claims into a discussion of history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 9:47 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, we know that grabbers mean "banned and confiscated" by "well regulated."

Tom, was George Washington a grabber?

Share this post


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

Tom, was George Washington a grabber?

Did he make possession of ordinary weapons illegal for everyone as California has tried to do?

No?

Then I'd say no.

Share this post


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

Did he make possession of ordinary weapons illegal for everyone as California has tried to do?

No?

Then I'd say no.

You certainly came up with an interesting definition of "grabber." Basically, you just believe whatever you want. Then you peddle that like a Hoover vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 possession of ordinary weapons blah blah  lying ass blah...

Are M-16's and "the like" JUST "ordinary weapons"?  Didn't one federal appeals court find battle guns extraordinary enough to be denied constitutional protection, in Kolbe?

Read SAILING ANARCHY.

Share this post


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

If these are "the like" that we're talking about, yes.

marlins-99.jpg

Thanks for the silly and repetitios content, you lightweight.

Quote

Shays' Rebellion  in a nutshell   from Patrick Charles, Historiographical Crisis, History Lesson 104

p1780 Herein enters the Standard Model myth that the cause and effect of the American Revolution was the right to keep and bear arms. The claim is unproven, yet Standard Model writers somehow link the drafting of the Second Amendment to Revolutionary War disarming and British embargoes. (269, quoting Halbrook)  How can this be if we do not have one piece of historical evidence that expressly links the two?270 

270. Nevertheless, the Heller majority agreed with this interpretation. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 594 (2008)

(Quoting Heller: “And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.”).

Indeed, the Heller majority cited to two sources in support of its conclusion, but both are taken out of historical context. For the history and context behind the two sources relied upon, see Charles, “Arms for Their Defence”?, supra note 3, at 421–35.

Neither the debates, state ratifying conventions, letters, pamphlets, nor newspaper editorials on the Constitution support this conclusion. It is a figment of the popular imagination that the Model writers created.

The interpretation is also problematic in that it conflicts with the fact that Congress, colonial governments, and the local committees of public safety frequently disarmed suspected loyalists or persons who did not take an oath of allegiance.271 

 

 

Share this post


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

So do you accept that things other than guns and drugs that were once legal to possess are now illegal to possess?


There are a few examples, though none with constitutional protection.

Would you agree with the CA government that guns are a nuisance to be abated, or do you think of them as property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe no one got another answer to my question.

It was legal to have gold before executive order 6102.

The gold was viewed as property, not a nuisance, so the owners were compensated when they turned it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 9:13 AM, jocal505 said:

Are M-16's and "the like" JUST "ordinary weapons"?  Didn't one federal appeals court find battle guns extraordinary enough to be denied constitutional protection, in Kolbe?

Read SAILING ANARCHY.

Can you perhaps tell us just how many people are running around with M-16's and "the like"

Share this post


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

Can you perhaps tell us just how many people are running around with M-16's and "the like"

One out of one hundred citizens, according to the NSSF in Kolbe,  as of 2013. The punch line is that each guy owns three of them. YCMTSU.

Share this post


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

One out of one hundred citizens, according to the NSSF in Kolbe,  as of 2013. The punch line is that each guy owns three of them. YCMTSU.

Obviously untrue. You and I both only own one assault weapon.

Share this post


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

Obviously untrue. You and I both only own one assault weapon.

Very tedious stuff, Tom. But thanks for sharing your understanding of the nuances of other subjects.

Share this post


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

One out of one hundred citizens, according to the NSSF in Kolbe,  as of 2013. The punch line is that each guy owns three of them. YCMTSU.

Your number seems off a bit, no matter who it came from..

The ATF says there is only ~176K transferable machine guns in their database (1)  - and I'm positive that they are not all the M16. And if it is a M16, it is a machine gun.

_Try_ to at least be accurate in your claims.. I can build a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, but looking like one doesn't make it a Ferrari.

1: http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

Share this post


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

Your number seems off a bit, no matter who it came from..

The ATF says there is only ~176K transferable machine guns in their database (1)  - and I'm positive that they are not all the M16. And if it is a M16, it is a machine gun.

_Try_ to at least be accurate in your claims.. I can build a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, but looking like one doesn't make it a Ferrari.

1: http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

He did say M16's and "the like."

"The like" includes these assault weapons. At least according to FL grabbers. I'm not really sure what an "assault weapon" is so I have to take the word of any grabber who identifies a gun as an assault weapon.

marlins-99.jpg

Share this post


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

He did say M16's and "the like."

"The like" includes these assault weapons. At least according to FL grabbers. I'm not really sure what an "assault weapon" is so I have to take the word of any grabber who identifies a gun as an assault weapon.

marlins-99.jpg

You sound pretty confused, Tom. You  you can't sort the gun basics any more. You dumbed it down for guns.

Share this post


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

You sound pretty confused, Tom. You  you can't sort the gun basics any more. You dumbed it down for guns.

Well, the "control" people have a long history of confusing the issue by claiming that the rifle you can buy in a local store is the same as the rifle being issued in the military.

These same "control" people also like to call standard capacity mags "high capacity", but "high capacity" is defined as almost any number from 7-20.

 

Share this post


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

Well, the "control" people have a long history of confusing the issue by claiming that the rifle you can buy in a local store is the same as the rifle being issued in the military.

These same "control" people also like to call standard capacity mags "high capacity", but "high capacity" is defined as almost any number from 7-20.

 

Hello? The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models. Except full auto feature. which WHOOPS was deemed less lethal though more dangerous.

The NSSF and SAF had their chance (under strict scrutiny guidelines FFS) before the full en banc Kolbe judges. Your problem, bubba:  commercials for the guns said the consumer models are to military spec.

 

Look you sport whiner, "high capacity, standard capacity" (meaning twenty rounds for the  Mimi 14) blah blah... whatever...fine---just choose your own term and present it, I'm easy. But I suggest that you won't like the arrangements under any term, or any number = white noise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 2:43 PM, bpm57 said:

Your number seems off a bit, no matter who it came from.. IT CAME FROM THE NSSF

The ATF says there is only ~176K transferable machine guns in their database (1)  - and I'm positive that they are not all the M16. And if it is a M16, it is a machine gun.

_Try_ to at least be accurate in your claims.. I can build a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, but looking like one doesn't make it a Ferrari.

1: http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/MG_Count_FOIA_2016.pdf

Here you go. My  source is page 23 of the Kolbe decision, which cites the NSSF. 

Quote

The State has calculated that — accepting the plaintiffs’ estimate that there were at least 8 million FSA-banned assault weapons in circulation in the United States by 2013 — those weapons comprised less than 3% of the more than 300 million firearms in this country. Moreover, premised on the plaintiffs’ evidence that owners of the banned assault weapons possessed an average of 3.1 of them in 2013, the State has reckoned that less than 1% of Americans owned such a weapon in that year.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

Share this post


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

The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models.

 

"a  semiautomatic  centerfire  rifle  that  has  a  fixed  magazine  with  the  capacity  to  accept  more than 10 rounds;" is only "the like" of an M16 in one significant way: grabbers want to ban both.

Share this post


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

Hello? The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models. Except full auto feature. which WHOOPS was deemed less lethal though more dangerous.

The NSSF and SAF had their chance (under strict scrutiny guidelines FFS) before the full en banc Kolbe judges. Your problem, bubba:  commercials for the guns said the consumer models are to military spec.

 

Look you sport whiner, "high capacity, standard capacity" (meaning twenty rounds for the  Mimi 14) blah blah... whatever...fine---just choose your own term and present it, I'm easy. But I suggest that you won't like the arrangements under any term, or any number = white noise.

 

"Could not demonstrate a difference... except" Well, nice to see you are confused as to what "difference" means free hint: it means they are not the same

Cell phone cases claim to be made to mil spec as well. I find it unlikely that any AR ad out there actually says what "mil-spec" it meets - if it does, I'm sure you will be disappointed if you actually look up what that spec is.

https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-15-military-collector-m4/

https://fnamerica.com/products/rifles/fn-m4a1/

They look similar, but one is an issue weapon, and the other one isn't

If it isn't select (or burst) fire, then it isn't what the military is buying.

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

"entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review"

That is from page 10 of the Kolbe en banc ruling. The only Kobe strict scrutiny ruling I can find is the vacated one.

If you look at the concurring opinions, the "esteemed" judges actually complain about the whole idea of subjecting it to strict scrutiny. I can see why - they had to re hear the case to get to the predetermined outcome. 

So, reading comprehension issues, Joe?

 

 

Share this post


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

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

"entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review"

That is from page 10 of the Kolbe en banc ruling. The only Kobe strict scrutiny ruling I can find is the vacated one.

Hah! You expect him to understand the difference?

The guy can't figure out who the main plantiffs are. Figuring out levels of scrutiny is just not gonna happen. Of course he's going to get it wrong.

Share this post


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

Hah! You expect him to understand the difference?

The guy can't figure out who the main plantiffs are. Figuring out levels of scrutiny is just not gonna happen. Of course he's going to get it wrong.

Hi Pooplius.

What's your problem? The bottom line of Kolbe? That AW's are no longer protected as a "right"? 
Bingo.

Share this post


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

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

 The partial federal court ordered strict scrutiny from the district court. My info is that the 4th Circuit Court complied.

I don't know how this worked between the courts. But Judge Traxler ruled 2-1 that Kolbe go back to District Court under strict scrutiny guidelines. Simultaneously, the MD AG pressed for en banc review.  There, going far beyond the AW issue itself,  intermediate scrutiny of AW rights was ordered, 

Quote

(Source: David Kopel, a CATO writer, February 4, 2016)

Today the 4th Circuit decided Kolbe v. Hogan, a Second Amendment challenge to a 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute. The statute bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.” In a 2-1 decision written by Chief Judge Traxler, the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seek en banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

(...) Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defense situations mean that citizens often need the ability to fire multiple shots, and...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/04/kolbe-v-hogan-4th-circuit-requires-strict-scrutiny-for-maryland-ban-on-magazines-and-semiautomatics/?utm_term=.6c2584cace81

Comments and information is  welcome, but it's a moot point now...

Quote

In its opinion in the case, Kolbe v. Hogan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that Maryland’s law must be subjected to strict scrutiny, sending the ban back to a lower court. The judges said that the state’s ban was an affront to what Scalia called the “core” purpose of the Second Amendment: “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” As a consequence, the court found that the ban was likely unconstitutional. “We are compelled by Heller … to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review,” wrote Justice William Byrd Traxler, Jr.

The Kolbe ruling was the first time a circuit court had used strict scrutiny to evaluate a gun ban. The Second Circuit used intermediate scrutiny when it upheld New York and Connecticut’s assault weapons bans late last year. The D.C. Circuit issued a similar ruling on the district’s own assault weapons law around the same time. And though the Sixth Circuit instructed a lower court in Tennessee to use strict scrutiny to evaluate a federal gun prohibition for the mentally ill, that order is now being reconsidered.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/important-gun-rights-questions-supreme-court-might-answer/

Traxler was unhappy with the outcome.

Quote

 

from Traxler's Kolbe Dissent p88

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, with whom NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:

 

Today the majority holds that the Government can take semiautomatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens. In South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland, the Government can now tell you that you cannot hunt with these rifles. The Government can tell you that you cannot shoot at targets with them. And, most importantly, the Government can tell you that you cannot use them to defend yourself and your family in your home.

 

 In concluding that the Second Amendment does not even apply, the majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. In addition, the majority holds that even if it is wrong when it says that the Second Amendment does not cover these commonplace rifles, Maryland can still lawfully forbid their purchase, even for self defense in one’s home-the core Second Amendment right.

 

My friends do not believe this ruling impairs the rights citizens have under the Constitution to any significant degree. In my view, the burden imposed by the Maryland law is considerable and requires the application of strict scrutiny, as is customary when core values guaranteed by the Constitution are substantially affected. I recognize that after such a judicial review, the result could be that the 89 Maryland law is constitutional. I make no predictions on that issue. I simply say that we are obligated by Supreme Court precedent and our own to treat incursions into our Second Amendment rights the same as we would restrictions on any other right guaranteed us by our Constitution. Therefore I respectfully dissent.

 

Share this post


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

 I don't know how this worked between the courts. But Judge Traxler ruled 2-1 that Kolbe go back to District Court under strict scrutiny guidelines. Simultaneously, the MD AG pressed for en banc review.  There, going far beyond the AW issue itself,  intermediate scrutiny of AW rights was ordered, 

 

Strange, you try to present yourself as a legal expert - but now I just have to assume that you just find quotes that you like and present them as fact.

It really doesn't matter what anyone said about the 2016 ruling, or what was said in it, since that ruling was vacated (kinda like it never happened) by the 2017 en banc (which means all the judges in the circuit heard the case) opinion. I quoted this ruling. It says they used intermediate scrutiny to decide things.

The fact that you keep claiming they used strict scrutiny is, at best, misleading.

 

Share this post


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

The fact that you keep claiming they used strict scrutiny is, at best, misleading.

No, it would be misleading if he understood what he was doing.

It's just ignorant.

Share this post


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

Strange, you try to present yourself as a legal expert - but now I just have to assume that you just find quotes that you like and present them as fact.

It really doesn't matter what anyone said about the 2016 ruling, or what was said in it, since that ruling was vacated (kinda like it never happened) by the 2017 en banc (which means all the judges in the circuit heard the case) opinion. I quoted this ruling. It says they used intermediate scrutiny to decide things.

The fact that you keep claiming they used strict scrutiny is, at best, misleading.

 

I pose as a legal expert? Please. I'm  a hotshot carpenter who enjoys reading, and debunking. Speaking of debunking...

Denial much? I cited the strict scrutiny of Kolbe two ways, before and after.

  • Before: Judge Traxler ordered strict scrutiny from the bench, but the full en banc court went rogue?
  • After: The Trace, my source, stated that strict scrutiny had been applied.
Quote

The Kolbe ruling was the first time a circuit court had used strict scrutiny to evaluate a gun ban. 

The original version of Kolbe was vacated, yes. Then, acting on strict scrutiny guidelines per decorum, Kolbe was decided again, against the proliferation of AW's. Page 10, your quote, seems to be referring to the initial District Court decision.

It's history now. To conclude our misunderstanding, under strict scrutiny guideline, the Kolbe decision has determined that AW's have no constitutional protection.

Share this post


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

No, it would be misleading if he understood what he was doing.

It's just ignorant.

Strict scrutiny, baby. As Adam Winkler predicted, gun restrictions can survive such a standard.

I am not the ignorant sort, since five years of the research and history I have submitted has not been factually challenged on Political Anarchy.

Where is your history, Tom? Who are your historians? Are you a Clayton Cramer fan? Whip that shit out. This is fun.

Share this post


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

I pose as a legal expert? Please. I'm  a hotshot carpenter who enjoys reading, and debunking. Speaking of debunking...

Denial much? I cited the strict scrutiny of Kolbe two ways, before and after.

  • Before: Judge Traxler ordered strict scrutiny from the bench, but the full en banc court went rogue?
  • After: The Trace, my source, stated that strict scrutiny had been applied.

The original version of Kolbe was vacated, yes. Then, acting on strict scrutiny guidelines per decorum, Kolbe was decided again, against the proliferation of AW's. Page 10, your quote, seems to be referring to the initial District Court decision.

It's history now. To conclude our misunderstanding, under strict scrutiny guideline, the Kolbe decision has determined that AW's have no constitutional protection.

WTF are you talking about? Rogue? Traxler's panel judgement was appealed - that is why there is an en banc opinion.  Where do you get this decorum nonsense from?

The panel decision means nothing - it went in front of the whole circuit. If the circuit had decided not to hear it en banc, then Traxler's panel decision would of set the standard to strict scrutiny in the 4th circuit. But it didn't, since it was vacated. En banc, they agreed with the district court.

From the en banc opinion:

"As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district
court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent

....

entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review."

Page 51: "First of all, intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate
standard because the FSA does not severely burden the core
protection of the Second Amendment"

Page 69: "Meanwhile, we conclude that no more than intermediate scrutiny applies here,"

Or you could read the concurring opinions, where they bitch about the whole concept of strict scrutiny.

So, please explain where you see that strict scrutiny _was_ applied - not in a dissent, not in a vacated ruling, not in an article about a vacated ruling, where was it applied in Kolbe v. Hogan.

Reading this opinion is painful, since the opinion is written as if an M16 and an AR are the same thing. Of course, anyone with a brain knew how the ruling went after reading the emotional appeals that are the first 7 or so pages of it.

I can't wait until, say, a common bolt action centerfire rifle is called an unusually dangerous weapon of war - since the military uses them as sniper rifles

Share this post


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

WTF are you talking about? Rogue? Traxler's panel judgement was appealed - that is why there is an en banc opinion.  Where do you get this decorum nonsense from?

The panel decision means nothing - it went in front of the whole circuit. If the circuit had decided not to hear it en banc, then Traxler's panel decision would of set the standard to strict scrutiny in the 4th circuit. But it didn't, since it was vacated. En banc, they agreed with the district court.

From the en banc opinion:

"As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district
court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent

....

entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review."

Page 51: "First of all, intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate
standard because the FSA does not severely burden the core
protection of the Second Amendment"

Page 69: "Meanwhile, we conclude that no more than intermediate scrutiny applies here,"

Or you could read the concurring opinions, where they bitch about the whole concept of strict scrutiny.

So, please explain where you see that strict scrutiny _was_ applied - not in a dissent, not in a vacated ruling, not in an article about a vacated ruling, where was it applied in Kolbe v. Hogan.

Reading this opinion is painful, since the opinion is written as if an M16 and an AR are the same thing. Of course, anyone with a brain knew how the ruling went after reading the emotional appeals that are the first 7 or so pages of it.

I can't wait until, say, a common bolt action centerfire rifle is called an unusually dangerous weapon of war - since the military uses them as sniper rifles

So, strict scrutiny was ordered, but not used, you say. How did that work? Your evidence is unconvincing. And my source says it was used, but you have no source saying it wasn't.

Page 10, which you mentioned,  is part of the edict to use intermediate scrutiny in the future.  Page 51 confirms, under strict scrutiny, that intermediate scrutiny should be used in the future.

If you choose to deny that strict scrutiny wad used in Kolbe, fine, you have chosen the right crowd. i am familiar with the selective belief system  of the SA Gun Club. But strict scrutiny rocks if it can support a decision like Kolbe.

Quote

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

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

 

Share this post


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

So, strict scrutiny was ordered, but not used, you say. How did that work? Your evidence is unconvincing. And my source says it was used, but you have no source saying it wasn't.

 

Both your Kopel article and thetrace article.. are about the fucking vacated ruling. Or are you of the opinion that articles written in 2016 have anything to do with a ruling that came out in 2017?

Talk about reality distortion..  I have no source? How about the words of the 2017 ruling? Is it really that complicated for you that there was a ruling in 2016 & 2017? Is it beyond your understanding that the 2016 ruling was vacated, so both that opinion and any articles written about it are meaningless? The ruling in this case says intermediate scrutiny is the correct reasoning. Don't believe me? https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html

And I still haven't figured out how an AR = M16. Well, beyond being "omg scary black rifle"

 

Share this post


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

 

Both your Kopel article and thetrace article.. are about the fucking vacated ruling. Or are you of the opinion that articles written in 2016 have anything to do with a ruling that came out in 2017?

Talk about reality distortion..  I have no source? How about the words of the 2017 ruling? Is it really that complicated for you that there was a ruling in 2016 & 2017? Is it beyond your understanding that the 2016 ruling was vacated, so both that opinion and any articles written about it are meaningless? The ruling in this case says intermediate scrutiny is the correct reasoning. Don't believe me? https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html

And I still haven't figured out how an AR = M16. Well, beyond being "omg scary black rifle"

 

The Trace article in my quote reported after the final decision, after the AW horse left the barn. The non-vacated decision, buddy.

After the binding decision The Trace article reported that the strict scrutiny standard had applied. Where is your source saying  strict scrutiny didn't?

By the way, Judge Traxler had offered (in his command to vacate)f t that strict scrutiny might still support such an AW restriction as the final outcome. 

Thanks for your courage to challenge me on Kolbe details. You are a few clicks better than NGS in the outcome and effort, while being dead wrong. 

If you are correct, it'sit could only be because the full panel overpowered Traxler's 2-1 demand for strict scrutiny,,, with Traxler at the table. Have a cite for that?  It's a moot point unless Kolbe is overturned, and there is no effort to overturn Kolbe I'm aware of.

 

Share this post


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

The Trace article in my quote reported after the final decision, after the AW horse left the barn. The non-vacated decision, buddy.

 

 

Here is the heading info on the article from thetrace: by Olivia Li ·March 2, 2016 · Updated March 13, 2016 9:58 pm EDT

Now, note that neither date is in 2017. Do you understand? THE EN BANC RULING CAME OUT IN 2017.

http://michellawyers.com/kolbe-v-omalley/

2/4/2016 Court Opinion (this is the Traxler 2-1 strict scrutiny opinion)

2/21/2017 Court Opinion (the en banc ruling that vacated the 2/4/16 ruling) (and no, it doesn't mean that Traxler's opinion was controlling precedent for a year)

So, please, tell me again how a 2016 article has anything to do with events from 2017. Was the justia link to complicated for you? I thought it summarized the ruling pretty well. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Libya thread:

On 4/28/2016 at 2:32 PM, Mark K said:

The level is comparable to your love for your guns,

 

15 hours ago, Mark K said:

Just like you do when someone attempts to takeyurgunz, I guess. 


And from the Putin thread:

On 10/24/2017 at 8:24 PM, Mark K said:

Free $peech doesn't belong anywhere near gun grabbers.


Mark, you seem to have something to say to me about gunz. So say it here. What's your take on the ban on possession passed in your state? And how about the judge's order delaying enforcement?

Answer your own question:

On 10/13/2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark K said:

Are our gun laws too lax?

Should the range of prohibited weapons be broader? Should there be any compensation for those whose property is taken, or are guns just a nuisance to be abated, not requiring any compensation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 12:56 PM, jocal505 said:

Thanks for your courage to challenge me on Kolbe details. You are a few clicks better than NGS in the outcome and effort, while being dead wrong. 

If you are correct, it'sit could only be because the full panel overpowered Traxler's 2-1 demand for strict scrutiny,,, with Traxler at the table. Have a cite for that?  It's a moot point unless Kolbe is overturned, and there is no effort to overturn Kolbe I'm aware of.

 

I'm "dead wrong" because you are incapable of realizing that 2016 and 2017 are not the same thing.

Or that King wrote the en banc opinion, not Traxler (you didn't even notice that quote in your precious thetrace article? Traxler wrote a dissent in the en banc opinion..)

"there is no effort?" well, there is this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-127.html

I mean, you do realize that any other case going after Maryland's FSA will just fail at this point, right? The "like M-16" test and barring that, intermediate scrutiny are the "law of the land" in the 4th circuit. The only way to get the ruling changed is to have SCOTUS rule on it, or wait many years for the makeup of CA4 to change.

However we won't know if the supreme court will hear it until 11/13 at the earliest.

From the petition:" The Fourth Circuit’s alternate decision applying intermediate scrutiny solidifies the Courts of Appeals’ conflict with Heller and this Court’s fundamental rights jurisprudence." http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/17-127-petition.pdf page 31

If you need a review of how it went through the courts, see pages 10-14. Maybe at that point you will understand that the Traxler panel decision was vacated by the King en banc opinion.

I'm sure you will tell me that my understanding of it is all wrong, and a 2016 article from thetrace, written nearly a year before the King (en banc) opinion is still correct. I eagerly await reading the latest reality distortion. Maybe you could try quoting Kopel again? His latest work on the Kolbe case is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/17-127-cert-tsac-cato.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 11:19 AM, bpm57 said:

 

Here is the heading info on the article from thetrace: by Olivia Li ·March 2, 2016 · Updated March 13, 2016 9:58 pm EDT

Now, note that neither date is in 2017. Do you understand? THE EN BANC RULING CAME OUT IN 2017.

http://michellawyers.com/kolbe-v-omalley/

2/4/2016 Court Opinion (this is the Traxler 2-1 strict scrutiny opinion)

2/21/2017 Court Opinion (the en banc ruling that vacated the 2/4/16 ruling) (and no, it doesn't mean that Traxler's opinion was controlling precedent for a year)

So, please, tell me again how a 2016 article has anything to do with events from 2017. Was the justia link to complicated for you? I thought it summarized the ruling pretty well. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html

 

(Shrugs) From the 2017 Kolbe ruling. The non-vacated, full en banc one. It came out 10-4, it was the shitcanning of AW's in federal appeals court, under strict scrutiny.

Quote

 (see end of p7, I feel your pain)

(...)   In early February of 2016, a divided three-judge panel of this Court vacated the Opinion’s Second Amendment rulings and remanded to the district court, directing the application of the more restrictive standard of “strict scrutiny” to the FSA.  (...) We thereby became the first and only court of appeals to rule that a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines deserves strict scrutiny.

 

The sentence continues, directly, without interuption, no fooley aroundee, to a kill shot...

Quote

 Meanwhile, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims. On March 4, 2016, the panel’s decision was vacated in its entirety by our Court’s grant of rehearing en banc in this case. We heard argument en banc on May 11, 2016, and the appeal is now ripe for disposition. As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent reasoning as to why the FSA contravenes neither the Second Amendment nor the Fourteenth. We diverge from the district court on one notable point: We conclude — contrary to the nowvacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at 627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards “M-16 rifles and the like”). Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that 10 the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.

 

Share this post


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

 

Should the range of prohibited weapons be broader? Should there be any compensation for those whose property is taken, or are guns just a nuisance to be abated, not requiring any compensation?

 

You want your money back for the exotic battle guns, that's nice. The ones which are now un-protected by the Second? 

Quote

Kolbe, p 7 

 We thereby became the first and only court of appeals to rule that a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines deserves strict scrutiny...(chop chop)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You want your money back for the exotic battle guns, that's nice. The ones which are now un-protected by the Second? 

 

"Exotic battle guns" is more to spell out and pronounce. Can't we just call our .22's assault weapons?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

"Exotic battle guns" is more to spell out and pronounce. Can't we just call our .22's assault weapons?

Insignificance suits you Tommie.  Thanks for the extended period of self-induced irrelevance.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

(Shrugs) From the 2017 Kolbe ruling. The non-vacated, full en banc one. It came out 10-4, it was the shitcanning of AW's in federal appeals court, under strict scrutiny.

The sentence continues, directly, without interuption, no fooley aroundee, to a kill shot...

 

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it?

"  In early February of 2016, a divided three-judge panel of this Court vacated the Opinion’s Second Amendment rulings and remanded to the district court, directing the application of the more restrictive standard of “strict scrutiny” to the FSA.  (...) We thereby became the first and only court of appeals to rule that a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines deserves strict scrutiny. "

Yes, this would be the Traxler 2-1 panel opinion.

and it then goes on

" On March 4, 2016, the panel’s decision was vacated in its entirety by our Court’s grant of rehearing en banc in this case. We heard argument en banc on May 11, 2016, and the appeal is now ripe for disposition. As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent reasoning as to why the FSA contravenes neither the Second Amendment nor the Fourteenth. We diverge from the district court on one notable point: We conclude — contrary to the nowvacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. "

Hmm, lets see here..

"On March 4, 2016, the panel’s decision was vacated in its entirety by our Court’s"

Do you understand what that means? It means Traxler's 2-1 opinion is completely meaningless. It does not matter what he said, since the final ruling is the King opinion.

You can sit there and bold one line, but it is totally meaningless. You are quoting a fucking paragraph that is talking about the history of the case.

Find anything in that ruling outside of Traxler's dissent that says strict scrutiny should be (or was) applied..

"As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent reasoning as to why the FSA contravenes neither the Second Amendment nor the Fourteenth"  the district court's judgement was intermediate scrutiny.

Did you read any of the SCOTUS stuff? Do you really believe that a bunch of high priced lawyers have a mistaken view of what happened in CA4? I guess a website that is nothing but court rulings got it wrong in their summary also. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/14-1945/14-1945-2017-02-21.html

As is pointed out in the petition for writ of certitori (aka how you get heard by the supreme court), the test in CA4 is the "like M-16" test or intermediate scrutiny.

Maybe you could look up what vacated means. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vacate

" To vacate a court order or judgment means to cancel it or render it null and void. " Gee, that sounds like what everyone but you thinks happened to Traxler's opinion in this case.

And you can sit and crow about "Traxler lost 10-4" all you like. How does one apply a "like M-16" test? Obviously (or maybe not), none of the banned rifles are select or burst fire, so "not-like".. well, I guess they are all semiauto, and have box magazines. Well, shit, I guess we will just have to ban all semiauto rifles sales in MD, to keep these "unusually dangerous weapons of war" away from citizens. We will ignore the unintentional humor of letting MD citizens own the M1 Garand, which was the issue rifle for a number of years. I guess it isn't "unusually dangerous" enough.

I await the latest batch of reality distortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks, intermediate scrutiny was applied. Like I said, I didn't know how the inter-court handoff worked. I thought the en banc court had to heed Traxler's requirement for strict scrutiny. 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now.. of course, there is the separate issue about whether or not you want the supreme court to take the case..

Since any adverse ruling for Kolbe would then be an issue for (potentially) everyone. 

Or they could send it back to CA4, telling them to rule in light of this or that court case, or using whatever level of scrutiny. Which doesn't mean Kolbe wins,