Sign in to follow this  
SC-Texas

Heller v. DC being heard today

Recommended Posts

If you're goin' downtown, the Bull & Finch might be worth a touristy stop.

Yeah, we have been there before, but I would be tempting fate by eating a lobster roll in front of Marie now , let alone going to a bar with cold beer. She has 3 months til her first competition and so her diet I pretty hardcore. She is weighing out how much banana she an have at breakfast. Would be a long drive home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you're goin' downtown, the Bull & Finch might be worth a touristy stop.

Yeah, we have been there before, but I would be tempting fate by eating a lobster roll in front of Marie now , let alone going to a bar with cold beer. She has 3 months til her first competition and so her diet I pretty hardcore. She is weighing out how much banana she an have at breakfast. Would be a long drive home.

 

Unnerstood.... If y'all are lookin' for somethin' fun to do, there's a tiny little dive joint called the "Can Tab Lounge" on Mass avenue in Cambridge. Nasty little place, but, they've got some awesome music coming thru there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unnerstood.... If y'all are lookin' for somethin' fun to do, there's a tiny little dive joint called the "Can Tab Lounge" on Mass avenue in Cambridge. Nasty little place, but, they've got some awesome music coming thru there.

We would not have time this trip, but will keep it in mind for next time. I love dive bars, my favorite bar in NYC was the vilaage idiot. If you did not watch your step in the head, you could fall through a hole into the basement. Was the perfect place to get loaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC resident prosecuted for dud shotgun shell

 

Mr. Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal history, is the first known case of a citizen being prosecuted in D.C. for inoperable ammunition. Washington police and prosecutors have spent a year and a half trying to nail him for the possession of so-called unregistered ammunition.

 

A hunter and gun owner, Mr. Witaschek has always kept his firearms at his sister’s house in Virginia. If convicted, he faces a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for having a single, inoperable shotgun shell in his home. The jury trial starts on Feb. 11.

 

The Metropolitan Police Department raided Mr. Witaschek’s rented Georgetown house twice in the summer of 2012 on the word of his angry ex-wife.

 

Frustrated with not finding the promised firearms, the police handcuffed him, searched his home top to bottom and came out with only ammunition, which carries the same felony penalty as a firearm.

 

Mr. Witaschek told me this week, “Since the night my home was invaded and family terrorized by a militarized D.C. police force, I am more afraid of what government is doing than I am of any of the people I encountered when I spent the night in jail.”

 

He added, “The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government — as much as against private bad guys and gangs.”

 

There have been two pre-trail hearings in the case so far. At the end of the first hearing in November, Judge Robert Morin gave the government until Jan. 3 to come up with a good defense for the initial police raid without a search warrant.

 

Knowing things weren’t going in their favor, the two assistant attorneys general for the District on the case, Peter Saba and Oritsejemine Trouth, offered Mr. Witaschek probation if he pleaded guilty. He declined the offer.

 

At the second hearing, the judge disallowed the first warrantless search and the fruits of it. This eliminated a box of rifle ammunition from the charges.

 

Undeterred, the prosecutors continued with the two items from the second raid — a misfired 12-gauge shotgun shell and a box of muzzleloader sabots.

 

Sabots are plastic covers that make it easier to push the bullet into a muzzleloader gun. There is no propellent on the bullet or sabot — because the gunpowder is separated — so it is not clear that it can be categorized as ammunition and thus only registered gun owners can possess it.

 

Thus, the single vaguely legitimate remaining charge for “unregistered ammunition” is the misfired shotgun shell that Mr. Witaschek has kept as a souvenir from deer hunting years earlier. The shell cannot be fired because the primer was already stricken and failed to propel it....

 

If any gun control advocates come along and say that DC has gone too far, it might cause me to reconsider my position on registration. But they won't, so I won't.

 

The prosecution has wrapped up the case of the old, misfired shotgun shell.

 

The District of Columbia has finished presenting its case on why Mark Witaschek is a danger to society for possessing a single shotgun shell and muzzleloader sabots in his home. This outrageous legal battle shows how far unelected, anti-gun liberals will go to attempt to destroy a man’s life.

 

 

When Attorney General Irvin Nathan's prosecutors rested on Tuesday, they established simply that Mr. Witaschek did not have a registered gun in the city, so he violated the firearms laws by having ammunition.

 

 

Mr. Witaschek has never denied these charges, but has said that he didn’t know that inoperable ammunition was illegal. He also insists that his constitutional rights have been violated.

 

 

“The police and attorney general obviously have infringed upon my Second Amendment right to keep arms, or ammunition, or even the muzzleloaders borne by our Founding Fathers,” the father of three told me. “And they trampled on almost every other amendment to the Bill of Rights not only for me, but my entire family.”

 

 

The Trial

 

 

Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.

 

 

It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

 

 

Judge Robert Morin has listened almost impassively as the government put police officers on the stand to explain how they raided the business man’s house twice looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek is a gun owner and hunter, but has always kept his firearms at his sister’s home in Virginia.

 

 

In pre-trial hearings, Judge Morin threw out the first search in June 2012 because the cops neglected to get a warrant. However, he allowed the second search in July to be considered, even though the warrant was based on ammunition found in June.

 

 

The David Gregory Defense

 

 

Mr. Nathan is best known as the lenient prosecutor who let off NBC News’ David Gregory for openly and knowingly possessing an illegal 30-round magazine on live TV.

 

 

“Prosecutors determined that going after David Gregory for possession of an illegal ammunition magazine ‘would not promote public safety nor serve the best interests of the people of D.C.,’” Mr. Witaschek said, referring to the letter of explanation Mr. Nathan sent the lawyer for NBC and Mr. Gregory.

 

 

“For my possession of a shotgun shell that misfired during a long ago hunt, why would that be any more of a danger to public safety?”

 

 

I asked Mr. Nathan’s spokesman Ted Gest why his boss declined to press charges against Mr. Gregory, but won’t relent on this case in which the defendant didn’t even know he was breaking the law.

 

 

 

Mr. Gest replied that “Mr. Nathan and our prosecutors believe this is in the interest of public safety” because Mr. Witaschek had been “accused of domestic violence.”

 

 

Character Defamation

 

 

The spokesman attempted to defame Mr. Witaschek’s character: “Are you aware of his history? That he threatened to kill his ex-wife, and she tried to get a protection order against him?”

 

 

Mr. Witaschek’s ex-wife, Gabriella Landinez, told police in May 2012 that her estranged husband had unregistered firearms in the home, and he said that he said he would kill her on the phone one time.

 

 

The police never seemed to have investigated the matter. Mr. Witaschek denies ever having guns in D.C. and making a threat.

 

 

A temporary protection order was granted ex parte (without Mr. Witaschek answering the complaint.)

 

 

But in court, Judge Jose Lopez denied Ms. Landinez’s request for a civil protection order (CPO) (and financial support) in Aug. 2012, saying there was no evidence of a threatening phone call.

 

 

"There's no history of violence in this family," the judge said. "There is no history of that type of manipulation in this family to lead to any inference that he would have said that statement…"

 

 

Mr. Landinez testified for the government in the ammunitions trial. In an interview Sunday night, she told me that she stands behind her testimony that her ex husband had firearms in the District.

 

 

"It's a lie to say he never had guns in D.C. We had guns in the house on Q Street," she said. "I saw at least three rifles and at least two shotguns -- inside and outside the safe. And he always had a handgun on the night table."

 

 

However, Mr. Witaschek told me that his estranged wife never lived in the house on Q Street, nor was she ever in his house.

 

 

Anyway, I asked Mr. Gest why he wanted me to write about Ms. Landinez's charges of the threatening phone call, especially considering Mr. Witaschek has no criminal history.

 

 

“I’m telling you about why we are bringing charges,” the government's spokesman replied. “That is a major part of evidence.”

 

 

I pointed out that the prosecutors shouldn’t bring up unfounded accusations in court.

 

 

“I can’t discuss admissibility,” Mr. Gest said. “Accusations that are unproven in court factor into prosecution decisions.”

 

 

The attorney general’s office seems determined to get this man on anything that will stick.

 

 

Mr. Gest asserted that, “Our domestic violence section represented this woman and found her credible.”

 

 

If that is true, then why did the attorney general office offer to drop the request for a protective order in exchange for a cash payment from Mr. Witaschek?

 

 

The chief of the Domestic Violence Section for the Attorney General, Janese Bechtol, emailed Mr. Witaschek’s lawyer, Howard X. McEachern, in July 2012 on behalf of the city and Ms. Landinez.

 

 

Ms. Bechtol wrote that they “would be willing to propose an out of court settlement in lieu of the CPO to tide them over until a divorce case settles matters permanently.”

 

 

The prosecutor added that, “We would ask for an agreement with essentially the provisions of the TPO, as well as $2000/month from Mr. Witaschek in rental assistance, and that Mr. Witaschek keep Ms. Landinez on his health insurance.”

 

 

If Mr. Nathan’s prosecutors truly believe this woman was “credible” about her life being in danger, then it is hard to understand why the city would trade her safety for $2,000 a month and health insurance.

 

 

Ms. Landinez denies that she authorized the assistant attorney general to make this offer. "It never, never, never happened," she told me. "I still wanted the restraining order. I never said I would do an exchange of anything at all."

 

 

Mr. Gest declined to comment on Ms. Landinez's assertions.

 

 

The ammunition evidence

 

 

So, the city is basing its entire case on the technicality that Mr. Witaschek had unregistered ammunition in his home, which he did not know was illegal.

 

 

When the trial resumes in late March, the defense will put on its expert to refute that muzzleloader bullets can be considered ammunition under the law.

 

 

William F. Vanderpool, a retired supervisory special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, will explain to the judge that the saboted lead balls have no powder or propellant attached, so are not “live.” Furthermore, muzzleloader firearms are exempt from the registration requirement.

 

 

Mr. Gest would only say that, “We know they need gunpowder to shoot. We consider it unregistered ammunition. That is why we are filing this charge.”

 

 

The primer on the shotgun shell had already been struck by the firing pin. Mr. Witaschek kept the misfired shell on his home office desk as a memento from a hunt. Mr. Gest said that he’s “not a technical person, but we consider it operable.”

 

 

Unfortunately, even if the judge rules that it is inoperable, an empty plastic shells is illegal in D.C. for anyone who is not a registered gun owner. The same goes for spent casings.

 

 

The firearms laws in D.C. are, at best, pointless and absurd and, at worst, wildly unconstitutional. But until the courts overturn the laws, the least the attorney general should do is use his prosecutorial discretion fairly to all.

 

 

If Mr. Gregory was not a threat to society holding a “high capacity” magazine without a gun, then Mr. Witaschek should be treated the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, how many judges ruled against Heller before the Supremes sorted it out?

Judges or courts? And are you including the Parker case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witaschek Signs Gun Offender Registry

 

 

...On Friday afternoon, I accompanied Mr. Witaschek and his wife, Bonnie, to Metropolitan Police Department headquarters to abide by the terms of his sentence, which meant registering within 48 hours.

 

Immediately inside the front doors and metal detectors is the Gun Offenders Registry Unit, which has suddenly appeared in the same office space as what was the Firearms Registry Unit. A white piece of paper taped over the existing painted sign indicated the office switch.

...

He had to sign into an old, thick hardbound book that was inscribed on the front “Gun Offenders Registry.” It sat on the counter between the cops and the public. I asked Officer Flores what the book was used for and where it was stored.

 

“You’ll have to file a Freedom of Information to know that,” she replied. I told her that I would.

 

Next, it was time for a mugshot.

 

Officer Robinson told Mr. Witaschek to stand against a white wall while she took three pictures with a point-and-shoot camera on a tripod.

 

During the registration process, Mr. Witaschek was repeatedly told by the police that the requirements of the registry didn’t apply to him, since he now lives in Virginia.

 

That’s why he filled out a form “Gun Offender Registry Requirements for Non-Residents,” that says that the District of Columbia Gun Offender Registry Law does not apply to people who don’t work, live or attend school in the city.

 

Mr. Witaschek had to sign the form to verify that he will personally appear at the registry office within 48 hours if he moves to or works in the city.

But the terms of the gun-registry and how the list is used are cloaked in mystery.

 

...

 

An aide to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who wrote the original law, explained that the list is an “internal tool” for the police. She said that the list is for “enhanced monitoring by the Department after court monitoring ends, and also a deterrent for offenders, who are aware that they are on the registry.”

 

It is not clear whether someone on the D.C. gun-offenders list would be blocked from passing an FBI background check to purchase a firearm.

 

Neither the police nor the D.C. Council could tell me if the list is put in the FBI’s National Instant Background Check system.

 

Federal law bars felons from possessing guns, but people such as Mr. Witaschek who are convicted of nonviolent misdemeanor offense are on this registry.

 

For example, I wrote in 2012 about Army Spc. Adam Meckler, who was forced onto the gun-offenders registry for having long-forgotten loose rounds of 9mm ammo in the District.

 

Click here to read the story of Spc. Mecker, a veteran of both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, who was thrown in jail in D.C. for several round of ammunition.

 

...

 

Outside the police station, I asked Mr. Witaschek how he felt about submitting to this requirement of his sentence given by Judge Robert Morin.

 

“I was found guilty of something that is not even illegal and forced to register for something that is not illegal,” Mr. Witaschek said. He paused, then he just shook his head.

 

Mr. Witaschek is appealing his conviction both on technical grounds that muzzleloaders bullets are not classified as ammunition under the law and on the constitutional grounds that his Second Amendment rights have been infringed.

 

 

Contrary to the assertion in another thread, this shit doesn't "happen all the time" in places that do not exhibit an ongoing pattern of attempts to deny second amendment rights.

 

The DC government's hostility to civilian gun ownership is over the top. Other places don't lock up people like Meckler for stray bullets nor do they hassle people like Witaschek over stray metal pieces that might one day become projectiles. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied in DC

 

On May 6th, about six months after Alan Gura filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the long delayed Palmer v. District of Columbia case, he filed for a renewal of the writ.

The Palmer case is a basic right to carry case against the District of Columbia, which is the only jurisdiction in the United States that categorically denies any legal ability to carry a firearm outside of the home for legal self defense. The case was originally filed on August 6th, 2009, so the case has been pending for nearly five years; an incredible delay of justice. A writ of mandamus would be an order from the appeals court to the lower court to issue a ruling.

...

Many people fervently believe that the District of Columbia is
denying them a dearly-cherished fundamental constitutional right, to
the detriment of their physical safety and that of their loved ones.
Cases involving this issue have been decided through the appellate
level—sometimes in favor of individual claimants—in far less time than
that which the district court below has sat on this case. See, e.g., Peruta
v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014); Moore v.
Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012).

It thus appears difficult for commentators to shake the suspicion
that the delay—extending well-beyond normal for any kind of case, let
alone a factually undisputed priority civil rights case—is calculated.

...

Adds Prof. Blackman,


/>Four years is “egregious.” It is “unreasonable.” There is absolutely no reason why such an important constitutional decision is still pending. This is a significant constitutional issue, the resolution of which could create a Circuit Split, and lead to Supreme Court review. This is embarrassing. I hope this is the magnum opus of Second Amendment opinions, because with all this time to work on it, it better be.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory In Palmer vs DC

 

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

 

And the last surviving bastion of a second amendment right that exists in the home only bites the dust. About time.

 

No, you can not completely prohibit citizens from bearing arms outside the home. That right can be regulated, but not extinguished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the other good thing about that is you will no longer have to incessantly ask the "2A right in the home only" question anymore. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a most fuktabulous ruling----one which will immediately begin to save lives rather than ending the lives too soon of law abiding citizens. I hope to fuk that DC's criminal element takes note and changes their current game plan on preying on the innocent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Ah hell, who am I kidding. Would love to see about three dozen pussified, chicken shit gang members meet an early demise)......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the other good thing about that is you will no longer have to incessantly ask the "2A right in the home only" question anymore. :P

Don't worry, I won't run out of questions and that one will be back. It has not been settled everywhere and the answer affects important questions that remain unanswered, such as whether we must prove a special need before being granted 2A rights outside the home and whether permits to exercise those rights outside the home can be denied on a bureaucratic whim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Emily Carry Her Gun?

 

What I find fascinating is that Emily is in an ideal position to actually exercise her second amendment rights in the District of Columbia tomorrow. She has always wanted to be able to carry her handgun, a Sig Sauer P229, if only with the 10 round magazines allowed in the District. Now she may legally do so.

She may only have a short window of opportunity, as it is possible that the District's attorneys will be able to convince an appeals court judge to issue a stay against the decision. I do not think this is likely, at least not immediately. After all, tomorrow is Sunday, the House of Representatives just voted to defund any gun law enforcement by the D.C. government, and two fairly high profile cases have been brought against obviously law abiding citizens with the very laws under question. All this works against any kind of "emergency" stay.

The summary judgment by the court does not differentiate between open and concealed carry. Emily could commemorate her celebration of freedom for men and women everywhere with a picture of her carrying with a recognizable D.C. landmark in the background.

 

Even if they can't get a stay, they can just write a new law pretty quickly. If she's going to openly and notoriously exercise her rights, she'd better get on with it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the other good thing about that is you will no longer have to incessantly ask the "2A right in the home only" question anymore. :P

 

The argument seems compelling. Something else occurred to me, the members of the Supreme Court and our other political leaders should not be allowed to create a buffer zone wherein they are isolated from the full effects of the laws they pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, the other good thing about that is you will no longer have to incessantly ask the "2A right in the home only" question anymore. :P

 

The argument seems compelling. Something else occurred to me, the members of the Supreme Court and our other political leaders should not be allowed to create a buffer zone wherein they are isolated from the full effects of the laws they pass.

 

Well, you could take just about every damn law passed in the last 20 years to court under the equal protection clause. Congress seems to exclude themselves from most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Emily's window of opportunity has closed, at least for 90 days.


In his order on Tuesday, the judge gave the City Council until October 22 to decide whether to enact new legislation “consistent with the court’s ruling.”

 

The judge said he would also consider arguments next month about whether to extend the stay pending an appeal. But Scullin cast doubt on the prospect of District officials winning a longer delay, writing that “the court is not convinced that defendants will be able to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant such a stay.”

 

(That's judgespeak for "you're going to lose if you appeal.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Emily's window of opportunity has closed, at least for 90 days.

 

 

In his order on Tuesday, the judge gave the City Council until October 22 to decide whether to enact new legislation “consistent with the court’s ruling.”

 

The judge said he would also consider arguments next month about whether to extend the stay pending an appeal. But Scullin cast doubt on the prospect of District officials winning a longer delay, writing that “the court is not convinced that defendants will be able to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant such a stay.”

 

(That's judgespeak for "you're going to lose if you appeal.")

 

 

JokeAwf's gonna have an aneurism.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis of Stay in Palmer Case

 

This looks more and more like a smart strategy on the part of Alan Gura. Notice that both parties are required to present argument as to why or why not a stay should be granted pending appeal. The court explicitly says that court is "not convinced that Defendants will be able to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits to warrant such a stay". To me, that makes it likely that if the District decides to appeal, the stay will be lifted, just as Thundar noted above.

 

In effect, this gives DC 45 days to write a constitutional law or appeal the stay. If they appeal it, it will most likely be lifted and Emily will get another shot at carrying her gun. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC Defines Pepper Spray as a Firearm


My neighbor who lives in DC has an 18-year old daughter who decided it was probably a good idea that she carried some pepper spray to defend herself in the city and when she heads off to college in South Carolina later this month. She explained to me when she went to buy the pepper spray at the Ace Hardware store in the Tenley Town neighborhood of DC, the sales clerk handed her the “The District of Columbia Self-Defense Spray Registration Form” which is part of the Gun Control and Firearms Registration.

 

To say that she and her mother were perplexed and stunned by the request was an understatement. The law requires a person be a minimum of 18 years old or older to own self-defense sprays because I guess it wouldn’t make any sense to allow teenagers to defend themselves against predators and the like.

 

The DC law governing this “firearm” specifies only sprays consisting of permissible ingredients may be used in the city.

 

“However, under D.C. Official Code § 7-2502.12, the only legal types of self-defense sprays are “a mixture of a lacrimator including chloroacetophenone, alphacloracetophenone, phenylchloromethylketone, orthochlorobenazalm-alononitrile or oleoresin capsicum.”

 

And then the law goes onto note that: “A person may use a self-defense spray only as reasonable force to defend themselves or their property and only if the self-defense spray meets the requirements above.”

 

Because it's useful in fulfilling the core lawful purpose of the second amendment, self-defense, I'd say pepper spray is protected by that amendment.

 

Because it's almost always non-lethal and because better sprays may be developed faster than laws change, I question the need to regulate its sale and possession at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC asking for more time in Palmer case


“The Court should grant a stay pending appeal here or, in the alternative, for 180 days pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, for District officials to craft responsive legislation,” wrote Irvin Nathan, attorney general for the District of Columbia, in a 15-page reply to Scullin filed Monday.

 

Nathan then immediately shifted gears in the reply away from creating legislation to apparently setting the stage for an appeal.

 

“As the District previously indicated, it intends to file timely a motion for reconsideration,” Nathan said. The basis of a future appeal, if the motion filed Monday is a sign of things to come, will be an interpretation of the Constitution from Nathan’s office.

 

“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has determined that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” Nathan said, continuing later with an explanation that, “The historical evidence demonstrates that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, as understood at the time of ratification, did not include an unalloyed right to carry operable firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.”

 

 

Heh. New use of "unalloyed" there. I guess he got tired of the usual strawman offered by gungrabbers: unfettered. As if we can either have all the rules they want or no rules at all, with no choices in between.

 

I wish the Supreme Court would get on with taking a case that establishes that the second amendment applies outside the home. The Brady Bunch position that we had indoor militias is so ridiculous that it's funny, but the joke is getting old. We did not. Paul Revere did not ride along screaming for everyone to get inside. The militias had to bring their guns outside in order to be useful. The fact that I had to actually write that sentence shows how detached from reality Brady types are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So you want to keep and bear arms outside your home in DC, huh? Why?"

 

Is that an inappropriate question to apply to our rights? I think so. If you want to speak or assemble, the government has to give good reasons why you can not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC (like Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) has fixed that defective, old second amendment for us. It works like this now:

 

...the right of the people who can show a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

At least, that's how it's supposed to work. We all know what happens in practice:

 

...the right of the people who can $how a $pecial need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community political connection to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DC Police "Lost" Fingerprints?

 

We're not talking scraps of paper here. These are computer files. I find "losing" these just about as credible as the IRS claims to have conveniently "lost" emails.

 

This looks to me like most gun control: designed and implemented with the purpose of making gun ownership more burdensome and expensive.

 

The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction in America in which gun owners have to re-register their guns with the government every three years. The mandate was enforced at the beginning of this year. Now, the Metropolitan Police Department has been sending notices to residents with registered firearms to come down to their headquarters to be fingerprinted. The only problem is, most people are resisting the demand.

Fox 5’s Emily Miller, a proud gun owner herself, led an investigation into why these law-abiding gun owners were being dragged back to the police station. They were already fingerprinted when they first registered their guns, so why do they have to do it again? The answer is infuriating:

“According to City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, the police department lost the fingerprints.”

 

I think dragging them back down to the police station every three years is just more unnecessary harassment. The government profits from the registrations, though, and at $35 a pop they've got to be making good money on the "lost" fingerprint charade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom has provided me with ample reading material on this, but I am still puzzled as to why the FF bothered to insert those first 13 words in the 2nd. I guess they were just thought of as packing material for the valuable part.

 

I know the SCOTUS ruled we all have the right to all arms (where can I get an RPG?).

 

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." (emphasis mine)

 

But, I am inclined to see things like Justice Stevens.

 

"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to page 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right."

 

Your first question has been addressed at post 152.

 

Your extended version of the 2A has a long list of problems, assuming it's supposed to be some version of something gun nutterz are advocating.

 

1. Not the "whole of the people" since no one complains about prohibited persons.

 

2. Not children unless you're talking about children between the ages of 18 and 21, since no one but me has complained about those age rules. And yes, I think anyone who had to register for the draft should be able buy grown-up guns. If we don't trust them with those, we shouldn't be registering them to use them.

 

3. "Not militia only" is the crux of our disagreement. You see the militia as a select group. I see the militia as anyone with a working trigger finger.

 

4. "Arms of every description" is again addressed at post 152.

 

5. "In the smallest degree" huh? Read post 77. The topic case was about the registry being closed, which is about the largest degree of infringement caused by registries. The only one larger is if they use the registry to confiscate guns while people are alive, instead of politely waiting for them to die. The current controversy is over restrictions like those detailed in post 77, including multiple trips to town and hundreds in fees.

 

And you complain that it's the gun nutz who get all riled up over infringements "in the smallest degree?" You didn't notice BJ complaining about the burden that ONE trip to town places on voting rights?

 

As for Stevens' view that the 2A protects arms only in conjunction with militia service, I'd point out that militia members are simply citizens, not soldiers until in service. It's while these citizens are NOT in service that we need to ensure that the government does not disarm them. Otherwise, they could be called to serve and not have arms to bring with them. Repeating from another thread:

 

The relevant bit of Federalist 29:

 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

 

And of US v Miller

 

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

Hamilton said the "people at large" would not be "well regulated" but should be properly armed. That's so that, when called for service, they could "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves." When called. Not when in service. When called, we are all just ordinary citizens. So the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms needs protection.

 

Hope that clears up your puzzlement, BD. Feel free to inquire further if it does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gura moves to block DC carry law


The attorney whose lawsuit led a federal judge to toss out D.C.'s longstanding ban on carrying guns outside the home is asking that same judge to block an emergency bill passed by the D.C. Council last month that allows certain residents to carry concealed handguns.

 

In a blistering court filing, attorney Alan Gura argues that the Council's bill — which limits concealed carry permits to residents who can prove they face a personal threat and restricts where they can travel with their handguns — does not meet the requirements of the late-July ruling in which Judge Frederick Scullin said the city's ban on carrying guns was unconstitutional.

 

"The Court's order specifically instructed, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, that the right to carry handguns is rooted in a constitutional self-defense interest. Yet [D.C. officials] have replaced their 'no permits are available' handgun carry regime with 'no permits are available merely for self-defense, and not unless we think, in our complete discretion, that it's a good idea,'" he wrote....

 

DC permits require the supplicant applicant to demonstrate a special need for self-defense, beyond that of ordinary citizens. Considering that protecting the ability of ordinary citizens to defend ourselves is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment, this requirement seems to me to undermine it. Also, leaving the determination of who has met the "special need" threshold solely in the hands of the executive branch, with no built-in judicial oversight in the law, seems to me to present a separation of powers and equal protection problem or two.

 

This post landed in the Heller thread because it's in DC and the thread was handy, but considering that the case is about bearing arms outside the home and about whether we should have to demonstrate a need before being granted our privileges rights, it could have landed in a couple of others. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC asking for more time in Palmer case

 

 

“The Court should grant a stay pending appeal here or, in the alternative, for 180 days pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, for District officials to craft responsive legislation,” wrote Irvin Nathan, attorney general for the District of Columbia, in a 15-page reply to Scullin filed Monday.

 

Nathan then immediately shifted gears in the reply away from creating legislation to apparently setting the stage for an appeal.

 

“As the District previously indicated, it intends to file timely a motion for reconsideration,” Nathan said. The basis of a future appeal, if the motion filed Monday is a sign of things to come, will be an interpretation of the Constitution from Nathan’s office.

 

“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has determined that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” Nathan said, continuing later with an explanation that, “The historical evidence demonstrates that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, as understood at the time of ratification, did not include an unalloyed right to carry operable firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.”

 

 

Heh. New use of "unalloyed" there. I guess he got tired of the usual strawman offered by gungrabbers: unfettered. As if we can either have all the rules they want or no rules at all, with no choices in between.

 

I wish the Supreme Court would get on with taking a case that establishes that the second amendment applies outside the home. The Brady Bunch position that we had indoor militias is so ridiculous that it's funny, but the joke is getting old. We did not. Paul Revere did not ride along screaming for everyone to get inside. The militias had to bring their guns outside in order to be useful. The fact that I had to actually write that sentence shows how detached from reality Brady types are.

 

DC to appeal Judge Scullin's ruling

 

The D.C. government passed a new law, one of the most restrictive in the nation, that Alan Gura, counsel for the plaintiff's, characterized as a "practical destruction of the right to bear arms" . The law gives the police chief power to reject and restrict any applicant's ability to carry outside the home for self defense. Gura challenged the new legislation, but Judge Scullin has yet to make a decision on it.

 

The D.C. government asked that Judge Scullin reconsider his ruling. Judge Scullin suggested that the government attorneys had not read his original decision, a rather strong rebuff.

 

The D.C. government has decided to appeal the original ruling to the D.C. appeals court. This is the court that Harry Reid recently used the "nuclear option" to pack with Obama appointees. It shall be very interesting to see how that court rules, and to see how Judge Scullin rules on the D.C. government attempt to create a bureaucratic ban on carrying outside the home to take the place of the outright ban.

 

LOL! Questioning whether we have read each other's posts is something that happens all the time here, but you rarely see it from a judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emily Miller decided to try for a concealed weapons permit, since you are supposed to be able to get one now in DC.

 

She found that the police rules say you must get training. Problem is, only the DC police training program is considered adequate, no other programs qualify. Other problem is, there is no DC police program. Other problem is, if they do get a program going, it will apparently cost $400. A minor expense for the people who live in high crime areas, I know, but considering they already have to pay almost that amount just to get permission to own the gun in the first place, it does start to add up. A few hundred here, a few hundred there, and pretty soon it could conceivably start interfering unfairly in the lives of poor people. You know, like when they have to pay ten bucks for an ID to vote.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/11/dc-police-on-concealed-carry-the-second-amendment-was-for-when-the-britsh-were-coming-n1917310

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emily Miller decided to try for a concealed weapons permit, since you are supposed to be able to get one now in DC.

 

She found that the police rules say you must get training. Problem is, only the DC police training program is considered adequate, no other programs qualify. Other problem is, there is no DC police program. Other problem is, if they do get a program going, it will apparently cost $400. A minor expense for the people who live in high crime areas, I know, but considering they already have to pay almost that amount just to get permission to own the gun in the first place, it does start to add up. A few hundred here, a few hundred there, and pretty soon it could conceivably start interfering unfairly in the lives of poor people. You know, like when they have to pay ten bucks for an ID to vote.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/11/dc-police-on-concealed-carry-the-second-amendment-was-for-when-the-britsh-were-coming-n1917310

 

Oh SNAP!

 

I think we should have mandatory voter training to go along with mandatory voter ID. It would make our democracy a better place if we actually had an informed electorate.

 

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gura asks judge to hold DC in contempt

 

Attorney Alan Gura, who is representing four gun owners in the 2009 Palmer v. District case, argued that, despite passing new laws that allow for concealed carry, the District has not lived up to its court-ordered obligation because the plaintiffs he is representing are still unable to obtain gun-carry permits under the city’s strict regulations.

...

“There is no way in the world my clients can obtain a license to carry a gun,” Mr. Gura said in court Thursday, noting that they are unable to prove they are under a specific threat as required by the regulations.

...

The D.C. Council adopted emergency legislation in response to the ruling in September that outlined new regulations for obtaining a concealed carry permit — including 18 hours of firearms training and the requirement that applicants demonstrate a special need for self-protection.

Judge Scullin asked the lawyers for the District on Thursday whether they had any statistics to show that restricting gun-carry to only people who can demonstrate a special need would enhance public safety.

Assistant Attorney General Andrew Saindon said he did not have any such statistics.

 

Possibly because there are no such statistics.

 

The reality is that only people who can demon$trate $pecial political connection$, not any other kind of special need or status, are the people who can carry guns in places where you must show a need to exercise that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fight over whether we have a right to keep and bear arms in public places continues in DC.


On Thursday, 11 December, Alan Gura replied to the D.C. government arguments that they should not be held in contempt in the case of Palmer v. D.C. ...

 

Here is a link to Gura's entire reply in a pdf file

 

excerpt:

 

Plaintiffs do, however, take this opportunity to reply to Defendants’ new arguments, rooted in alleged empiricism. Defendants assert that they may ration the right to bear arms to a select few; they need not deign to allow the “right” to all who may have it, but only to those whom Defendants believe have an exceptional case for enjoying their “right.” And it can do this, allegedly, because the right itself is harmful. In other words, where a court, applying means-ends scrutiny, would expect to see the governmental interest being claimed as public safety, with the regulation carefully tailored to avoid trenching on the right, Defendants instead offer that the governmental interest is the suppression of the right itself, and they measure success by the degree to which they stifle, not preserve, the right’s exercise.

...

Apart from their claim that the right itself is dangerous, Defendants do not attempt to show that their “good reason” requirements target any specifically dangerous people or behavior. And since Defendants admit that they are targeting the right itself, it is difficult to see how they might prove that the measure is properly tailored under any level of scrutiny. In sum, Defendants are merely trying to do again what they failed to do in Heller: “prove” that a fundamental Second Amendment right harms society, and thereby justify its violation. Even were Defendants able to prove their point, it would not legally justify their conduct.

 

The Supreme Court told DC in 2008 that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.

 

The message seems a bit slow to sink in, as the Palmer case demonstrates.

 

It's funny to look back at the 2008 posts in this thread. Like this one:

 

 

 

The question still remains: What does the 2nd amendment give you? We know that the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but does the 2nd allow assault weapons? Handguns? Does it allow for regulation as to type of weapons allowed?

If not, then can we please just end the 'War on Drugs' and, for that matter, end any bans on any substances of any kind whatsoever. I envision free markets in Plutonium and Oxycontin as the logical extensions of a potential SC decision not to differentiate between an 18th Century muzzle loader and an M4A1.

 



Yep, any gun at all, wherever, whenever, for whatever purpose. That's what the Heller decision meant. At least that's what some feared it might mean.

 

Turns out it means a few, select people are allowed to have some guns in some places under some conditions, if they can prove they are deserving of such a right privilege and if they can afford the time and money for the permitting process.

 

Not that there's anything regressive about that. Doesn't compare in any way to requiring that people spend some time and money in order to exercise their right to vote.

 

Favre was the best there ever was.

 

 

 

REmember, its about your constitutional rights.

1st & 4th amendments aren't any more important than the 2nd.

If they can weaken or marginalize one, they can do the same to the others.

Its not about "romantic and fanciful" tyranny.

That's pretty much where I'm at now.

 



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I proudly present this source to openly challenge Heller: Richard Posner, a conservative Supreme Court Justice:

The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia <http://www.newrepubl...ual-originalism>

 

 

 

Proudly if somewhat belatedly, compared to when I posted the same. I also managed to correctly identify the relevant thread, something that continues to escape you. ;)

 

Judge Richard Posner Reviews Scalia's Book

 

For those who don't know, this is the conservative judge who wrote the opinion saying that the second amendment applies outside the home. Jocal will like the review.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

REmember, its about your constitutional rights.

 

1st & 4th amendments aren't any more important than the 2nd.

 

If they can weaken or marginalize one, they can do the same to the others.

 

Its not about "romantic and fanciful" tyranny.

Wow, I just read that and was shocked.

 

Superficially, the 1st and 4th (along with the 5th, 7th and 14th) amendments are probably the most important ones dealing with personal freedoms. For me, the second amendment is symbolic. Guns are cool, I love to shoot, but they are far from necessary and no statistic can show that they make anything safer.

 

Tell me with a straight face that you can live without the protection from illegal search and seizure, free speech or self incrimination, but you can't live without your guns.

 

On the other hand, you are correct in saying that taking away rights starts with things that we live without, and before you know it, you have nothing.

 

The question still remains: What does the 2nd amendment give you? We know that the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but does the 2nd allow assault weapons? Handguns? Does it allow for regulation as to type of weapons allowed?

 

EDIT: On a side note, I am all for gun regulation, registration and fingerprinting, so long as there are protections for the gun-owner, but I think outright bans are stupid. If you are a drug dealer or violent criminal, the fact that the gun you have tucked into your waist band is illegal really does nothing to discourage crime.

 

Guns are cool? I love to shoot? That is not what the second amendment is about. The second amendment allows the people to be armed lest the federal government oppress them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

REmember, its about your constitutional rights.

 

1st & 4th amendments aren't any more important than the 2nd.

 

If they can weaken or marginalize one, they can do the same to the others.

 

Its not about "romantic and fanciful" tyranny.

Wow, I just read that and was shocked.

 

Superficially, the 1st and 4th (along with the 5th, 7th and 14th) amendments are probably the most important ones dealing with personal freedoms. For me, the second amendment is symbolic. Guns are cool, I love to shoot, but they are far from necessary and no statistic can show that they make anything safer.

 

Tell me with a straight face that you can live without the protection from illegal search and seizure, free speech or self incrimination, but you can't live without your guns.

 

On the other hand, you are correct in saying that taking away rights starts with things that we live without, and before you know it, you have nothing.

 

The question still remains: What does the 2nd amendment give you? We know that the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but does the 2nd allow assault weapons? Handguns? Does it allow for regulation as to type of weapons allowed?

 

EDIT: On a side note, I am all for gun regulation, registration and fingerprinting, so long as there are protections for the gun-owner, but I think outright bans are stupid. If you are a drug dealer or violent criminal, the fact that the gun you have tucked into your waist band is illegal really does nothing to discourage crime.

 

Guns are cool? I love to shoot? That is not what the second amendment is about. The second amendment allows the people to be armed lest the federal government oppress them.

 

 

The Supreme Court has since answered two out of three of lw's questions. They also said this:

 

the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DC asking for more time in Palmer case

 

“The Court should grant a stay pending appeal here or, in the alternative, for 180 days pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, for District officials to craft responsive legislation,” wrote Irvin Nathan, attorney general for the District of Columbia, in a 15-page reply to Scullin filed Monday.

 

Nathan then immediately shifted gears in the reply away from creating legislation to apparently setting the stage for an appeal.

 

“As the District previously indicated, it intends to file timely a motion for reconsideration,” Nathan said. The basis of a future appeal, if the motion filed Monday is a sign of things to come, will be an interpretation of the Constitution from Nathan’s office.

 

“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has determined that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” Nathan said, continuing later with an explanation that, “The historical evidence demonstrates that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, as understood at the time of ratification, did not include an unalloyed right to carry operable firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.”

 

 

Heh. New use of "unalloyed" there. I guess he got tired of the usual strawman offered by gungrabbers: unfettered. As if we can either have all the rules they want or no rules at all, with no choices in between.

 

I wish the Supreme Court would get on with taking a case that establishes that the second amendment applies outside the home. The Brady Bunch position that we had indoor militias is so ridiculous that it's funny, but the joke is getting old. We did not. Paul Revere did not ride along screaming for everyone to get inside. The militias had to bring their guns outside in order to be useful. The fact that I had to actually write that sentence shows how detached from reality Brady types are.

 

DC to appeal Judge Scullin's ruling

 

The D.C. government passed a new law, one of the most restrictive in the nation, that Alan Gura, counsel for the plaintiff's, characterized as a "practical destruction of the right to bear arms" . The law gives the police chief power to reject and restrict any applicant's ability to carry outside the home for self defense. Gura challenged the new legislation, but Judge Scullin has yet to make a decision on it.

 

The D.C. government asked that Judge Scullin reconsider his ruling. Judge Scullin suggested that the government attorneys had not read his original decision, a rather strong rebuff.

 

The D.C. government has decided to appeal the original ruling to the D.C. appeals court. This is the court that Harry Reid recently used the "nuclear option" to pack with Obama appointees. It shall be very interesting to see how that court rules, and to see how Judge Scullin rules on the D.C. government attempt to create a bureaucratic ban on carrying outside the home to take the place of the outright ban.

 

LOL! Questioning whether we have read each other's posts is something that happens all the time here, but you rarely see it from a judge.

 

 

Judge Scullin: DC rules go "far beyond" reasonable regulation

 

U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by three gun owners that seeks to overturn the new D.C. firearms law on the grounds that the regulations are so strict that they make it impossible to exercise their right to bear arms.

 

In the 23-page opinion, the judge wrote that the District’s “good reason” requirement goes far beyond reasonable concealed carry restrictions, that the gun owners are likely to win the case and that the city cannot enforce the law in the meantime.

 

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Judge Scullin wrote.

...

The judge said it was appropriate for the District to impose some restrictions on the carrying of guns in public, but granted the injunction on this provision noting that the plaintiffs likely would succeed in their claim that the city’s requirement to provide a “good reason” was a violation of the Second Amendment.

...

Chief Lanier has provided a few examples of circumstances that would qualify under the law, including a documented history as a domestic violence victim or having a job that requires carrying large amounts of money or valuables on a regular basis.

 

The judge questioned how limiting concealed carry permits to specific cases would keep the public safer.

 

“The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime,” Judge Scullin wrote. “Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?”

 

Judge Scullin also ruled Monday on an outstanding motion in the Palmer v. District gun case that overturned the city’s ban on carrying guns in public.

 

He decided not to hold the city in contempt of his ruling to devise a concealed carry scheme, noting that the old ban on carrying handguns in public was no longer in place and that the new version “only prohibits those who do not have a license from carrying a concealed handgun in public.”

....

 

I thought the bolded question was a particularly good one. My favorite kind: one to which I have not seen an answer, and which is unlikely to be answered by the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, I was hoping you could link me to any court decision which went into the following logic or argument:

 

 

"The First Amendment applies to the Internet even though it hadn't been invented when the Constitution was written; so the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a modern sporting rifle."

 

 

Of course I can, but you probably won't like it.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, I was hoping you could link me to any court decision which went into the following logic or argument:

 

 

"The First Amendment applies to the Internet even though it hadn't been invented when the Constitution was written; so the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a modern sporting rifle."

 

 

Of course I can, but you probably won't like it.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

 

 

Thanks, Tom.

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tom, I was hoping you could link me to any court decision which went into the following logic or argument:

 

 

"The First Amendment applies to the Internet even though it hadn't been invented when the Constitution was written; so the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a modern sporting rifle."

 

 

Of course I can, but you probably won't like it.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

 

 

Thanks, Tom.

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

 

 

Public safety is the reason we have a right to bear arms. The net effect is that they protect public safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

 

 

Public safety is the reason we have a right to bear arms. The net effect is that they protect public safety.

 

 

Well, if so, NGS, you will now back up your statement with public safety figures, and their sources. Please proceed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

 

 

Public safety is the reason we have a right to bear arms. The net effect is that they protect public safety.

 

 

Well, if so, NGS, you will now back up your statement with public safety figures, and their sources. Please proceed

 

 

Well, I could cite some number of defensive gun uses per year or a projected economic value of firearm deterrence. And no doubt, you would counter with other figures which you think are. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Even speech that is deemed detrimental to society is protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You're wrong about that, NGS. The right to self-defense will continue to be balanced against compelling governmental interests by legislatures and courts.

 

It is not absolute. That means the purpose behind the right will be examined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You're wrong about that, NGS. The right to self-defense will continue to be balanced against compelling governmental interests by legislatures and courts.

 

It is not absolute. That means the purpose behind the right will be examined.

 

 

Slippery slope from compeling governmental interest to the whims of the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You're wrong about that, NGS. The right to self-defense will continue to be balanced against compelling governmental interests by legislatures and courts.

 

It is not absolute. That means the purpose behind the right will be examined.

 

 

Slippery slope from compeling governmental interest to the whims of the majority.

 

 

OK, let's start down it. Prisoners are people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So prisoners should be allowed guns. Do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

... the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You're wrong about that, NGS. The right to self-defense will continue to be balanced against compelling governmental interests by legislatures and courts.

 

It is not absolute. That means the purpose behind the right will be examined.

 

 

Slippery slope from compeling governmental interest to the whims of the majority.

 

 

OK, let's start down it. Prisoners are people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So prisoners should be allowed guns. Do you agree?

 

 

It is not absolute, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Slippery slope from compeling governmental interest to the whims of the majority.

 

 

OK, let's start down it. Prisoners are people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So prisoners should be allowed guns. Do you agree?

 

 

It is not absolute, I agree.

 

 

So it's balanced against _______________?

 

Fill in the blank without using anything resembling "compelling governmental interests." If you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Slippery slope from compeling governmental interest to the whims of the majority.

 

 

OK, let's start down it. Prisoners are people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So prisoners should be allowed guns. Do you agree?

 

 

It is not absolute, I agree.

 

 

So it's balanced against _______________?

 

Fill in the blank without using anything resembling "compelling governmental interests." If you can.

 

 

So, it's balanced against the threat of unbridled tyranny in government -- just in case you didn't get my drift. You know as well as I do that the purpose of the 2A isn't just about protecting the homestead or the occasional duck hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DICTATORS.jpg

 

That is so monumentally stupid! I'm not an obo fan - but to equate him with the rest is as fucking asinine as the liberals chanting "Bush is hitler" a few years back.

 

Nanny, YOU are a large part of what is wrong with this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny - why are you trying to sell me on the concept of the 2A. Are you new here?

 

My beef with you is the stupid hyperbole that you and your elk use about obama. He has plenty of poor merits to discuss without having to resort to idiocy and making shit up. BTW - he's not up for re-election, so who fucking cares?

 

Obama is not hitler or stalin or uncle jo or Pol pot anymore that Bush was. That you even go there makes you just as dumb as the liberal retards who did it 8 years ago.

 

Yes, YOU are the problem with this country and how divided we are along with the libtards on the far left who are doing the same thing. You make me embarrassed to call myself a republican. I cringe every time you retards open your mouths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny - why are you trying to sell me on the concept of the 2A. Are you new here?

 

My beef with you is the stupid hyperbole that you and your elk use about obama. He has plenty of poor merits to discuss without having to resort to idiocy and making shit up. BTW - he's not up for re-election, so who fucking cares?

 

Obama is not hitler or stalin or uncle jo or Pol pot anymore that Bush was. That you even go there makes you just as dumb as the liberal retards who did it 8 years ago.

 

Yes, YOU are the problem with this country and how divided we are along with the libtards on the far left who are doing the same thing. You make me embarrassed to call myself a republican. I cringe every time you retards open your mouths.

 

Sorry, you feel that way.

 

It should have been clear that I was not equating Obama with these other tyrants, just his attitude towards guns. He has stated very clearly that he does not believe individuals should be able to own guns, this from a 'constitutional scholar'.

 

Second, the division in this country is decidedly NOT the result of hyperbole. The country's division is the product of progressivism which for decades has resulted in the theft of wealth and liberty from the individual in service to a centralized government, the substitution of market power (the freedom to choose) for state power and political allocations. The more people's freedoms are trampled, the more angry and louder they become. Politics has taken too important a role in the lives of Americans because power has been transferred to the political class and more and more Americans have become dependent on it. Socialism is force. You should understand this.

 

If these sentiments make you cringe, so be it. I will continue to express them, with and without hyperbole. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how the establishment Republicans are at war with the more libertarian Republicans. Will it end in divorce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how the establishment Republicans are at war with the more libertarian Republicans. Will it end in divorce?

 

Yeah, I think that's the "Can't We All Just Get Along" wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go read further on the Yamamoto "quotation." I don't think it's real.

 

He would have certainly known it to be true. Proving he said it is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how the establishment Republicans are at war with the more libertarian Republicans. Will it end in divorce?

 

Interesting in that I don't see it as Establishment vs Libertarian wings. I think its more the moderate wing against the tea party/turbo christian wing. But whatever you call it, the GOP is certainly splintering. In many ways I think that's a good thing. My father, a staunch GOP man from the Post WWII / 60s and 70s Cold War era would not recognize the party at all. He would completely and equally disdain the religious nutters as much as he would disdain the partiers of tea. And he certainly wouldn't recognize the BIG Gov't spenders of what is considered the current "establishment" republicans either.

 

I think the libertarians are a bit of the kooky uncle that everyone loves to have around and listen to his stories..... but they pat him on the head after dinner when he falls asleep in his chair after thanksgiving dinner. Some good moments of lucidity mostly overshadowed by silliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue my theme above - I would LOVE to see the moderate repubs who actually are fiscally conservative and social liberal join with the Blue dog dems and form their own party and leave the fringes to their own devices.

 

A girl can dream, can't she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue my theme above - I would LOVE to see the moderate repubs who actually are fiscally conservative and social liberal join with the Blue dog dems and form their own party and leave the fringes to their own devices.

 

A girl can dream, can't she?

 

Conservatarian?

 

Take the quiz: http://conservatarian.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

 

 

Public safety is the reason we have a right to bear arms. The net effect is that they protect public safety.

 

 

Well, if so, NGS, you will now back up your statement with public safety figures, and their sources. Please proceed

 

 

Well, I could cite some number of defensive gun uses per year or a projected economic value of firearm deterrence. And no doubt, you would counter with other figures which you think are. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You can't back up your statement (that guns add to public safety).

In fact, guns in the USA are a public health negative of epidemic proportion.

That's why he gun lobby is hiding behind blocked research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

 

 

Public safety is the reason we have a right to bear arms. The net effect is that they protect public safety.

 

 

Well, if so, NGS, you will now back up your statement with public safety figures, and their sources. Please proceed

 

 

Well, I could cite some number of defensive gun uses per year or a projected economic value of firearm deterrence. And no doubt, you would counter with other figures which you think are. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You can't back up your statement (that guns add to public safety).

In fact, guns in the USA are a public health negative of epidemic proportion.

That's why he gun lobby is hiding behind blocked research.

 

 

Of course I can. One life saved in my family would be enough, but the 2A is ultimately to protect us from people like you. And that makes it worth a million!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether I care for the ruling or not is immaterial.

The net effects of guns in our society, however, is quite material.

Public safety is more important than the compulsive desire to place loaded guns all about, IMO.

 

 

Public safety is the reason we have a right to bear arms. The net effect is that they protect public safety.

 

 

Well, if so, NGS, you will now back up your statement with public safety figures, and their sources. Please proceed

 

 

Well, I could cite some number of defensive gun uses per year or a projected economic value of firearm deterrence. And no doubt, you would counter with other figures which you think are. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because the right to self defense does not require justification to you or anyone much less meeting some net present value to society. It is no different for the right to bear arms that the right of free speech. "Shall not be infringed" comes to mind. Sorry.

 

 

You can't back up your statement (that guns add to public safety).

In fact, guns in the USA are a public health negative of epidemic proportion.

That's why he gun lobby is hiding behind blocked research.

 

 

You keep spewing this, without discussing the nature of that "research". When an entity is asked to analyze a collection of datasets with the intent to support a foregone conclusion, that is not research, it's advocacy.

 

Guns in the USA aren't a significant public health negative, JoCal, tolerance of anti-social behavior is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't back up your statement (that guns add to public safety).

 

In fact, guns in the USA are a public health negative of epidemic proportion.

 

That's why he gun lobby is hiding behind blocked research.

 

 

You keep spewing this, without discussing the nature of that "research". When an entity is asked to analyze a collection of datasets with the intent to support a foregone conclusion, that is not research, it's advocacy. This is a wild accusation. It's research if an acceptable methodology has been followed, and chronicled.

 

Guns in the USA aren't a significant public health negative, JoCal, tolerance of anti-social behavior is.

 

 

You are playing the blanket "crooked science" card.

You need to show particular bias in each of these studies, or impartiality to scientific result in ALL of them, to support your allegation.

Each study is like a sailboat race. We are all tied for first place on the starting line...then the race happens.

Every study could be blasted in peer review, and some are. Here's Wintemute taking issue with Branas.

Lott didn't fare well with the NRC in 2004. 18 of 19 scientists present found serious problems with his work.

Then they found problems with the logic of the lone dissenter in their group. They left 343 pages of open discussion for you to dissect.

 

 

Guy, you have zero research to counter what I have presented.

Where is your own evidence base? Lott and Kleck are discredited, and unsupported by other study.

Why don't you know the better researchers in the field? Or the worst ones?

 

Any complicit researchers would have to include David Hemenway...but scientists have logged little criticism during his 30 years of work. Try to find some dirt on him...I did so long ago.

You need to bash the Johns Hopkins/Bloomberg School of Public health...but their work passes peer review regularly!

 

You want "efficacy", but you are not accepting the evidence-based facts as known. Your meme sounds hollow, Mr. Guy.

The IOM lined up the causal study you requested. Do you support further progress in the research field?

 

Eighth source documenting the federal research ban: IOM/CDC 2013

(Note: the CDC was the specific victim of Sen. Durkin's 1996 NRA funding freeze)

 

Impact of Existing Federal Restrictions on Firearm Violence Research

There are many legal and responsible uses for guns; an individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago.16 However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers’ ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,17 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.

 

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=23#>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You can't back up your statement (that guns add to public safety).

 

In fact, guns in the USA are a public health negative of epidemic proportion.

 

That's why he gun lobby is hiding behind blocked research.

 

 

You keep spewing this, without discussing the nature of that "research". When an entity is asked to analyze a collection of datasets with the intent to support a foregone conclusion, that is not research, it's advocacy. This is a wild accusation. It's research if an acceptable methodology has been followed, and chronicled.

 

Guns in the USA aren't a significant public health negative, JoCal, tolerance of anti-social behavior is.

 

 

You are playing the blanket "crooked science" card.

You need to show particular bias in each of these studies, or impartiality to scientific result in ALL of them, to support your allegation.

Each study is like a sailboat race. We are all tied for first place on the starting line...then the race happens.

Every study could be blasted in peer review, and some are. Here's Wintemute taking issue with Branas.

Lott didn't fare well with the NRC in 2004. 18 of 19 scientists present found serious problems with his work.

Then they found problems with the logic of the lone dissenter in their group. They left 343 pages of open discussion for you to dissect.

 

 

Guy, you have zero research to counter what I have presented.

Where is your own evidence base? Lott and Kleck are discredited, and unsupported by other study.

Why don't you know the better researchers in the field? Or the worst ones?

 

Any complicit researchers would have to include David Hemenway...but scientists have logged little criticism during his 30 years of work. Try to find some dirt on him...I did so long ago.

You need to bash the Johns Hopkins/Bloomberg School of Public health...but their work passes peer review regularly!

 

You want "efficacy", but you are not accepting the evidence-based facts as known. Your meme sounds hollow, Mr. Guy.

The IOM lined up the causal study you requested. Do you support further progress in the research field?

 

Eighth source documenting the federal research ban: IOM/CDC 2013

(Note: the CDC was the specific victim of Sen. Durkin's 1996 NRA funding freeze)

 

Impact of Existing Federal Restrictions on Firearm Violence Research

There are many legal and responsible uses for guns; an individual’s right to own and possess guns was established in the U.S. Constitution and affirmed in the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller15 and McDonald v. City of Chicago.16 However, the scarcity of research on firearm-related violence limits policy makers’ ability to propose evidence-based policies that reduce injuries and deaths and maximize safety while recognizing Second Amendment rights. Since the 1960s, a number of state and federal laws and regulations have been enacted that restrict government’s ability to collect and share information about gun sales, ownership, and possession, which has limited data collection and collation relevant to firearm violence prevention research. Among these are the amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968,17 which prohibits the federal government from establishing an electronic database of the names of gun purchasers and requires gun dealers to conduct annual inventories of their firearms.

 

In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection, congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advocate or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar restrictions affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.19 The net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and effects of firearm violence.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=23#>

 

 

It doesn't matter what you think, Jokeawf. We have a right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The Heller decision said gun bans closed registries were unconstitutional. Yes.

 

You may consider that "scratchable" STRAW MAN again. Go get a decent, honest argument. but I don't.

 

I don't want to "scratch" our second amendment right to purchase guns (the one Olsonist thinks does not exist) because I think it might have some bearing on the tools that Sol was talking about. If we ever find out what those are.

 

 

Heller was wide open to existing restrictions...and left the door open to CCP restrictions, and future restrictions.

The second amendment is not an absolutish structure.

 

 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

 

The opinion of the court contained more than just that one paragraph that you love so much. You should really read the rest of it some time.

 

Do you know what a "straw man" is? I ask because you said you considered the second amendment scratchable and I replied that the central holding in Heller was not scratchable to me. If you do understand what a "straw man" is, identify it.

 

Heller closed the door on existing bans closed registries, and good riddance. But you have to read more than one paragraph of the opinion to get to those parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you know what a "straw man" is? I ask because you said you considered the second amendment scratchable and I replied that the central holding in Heller was not scratchable to me. If you do understand what a "straw man" is, identify it.

 

 

Heller says many things. And I've studied them all.

I was discussing their acceptance of the idea of restrictions on the second amendment. I said so, too.

I was not arguing what you consider the "central holding." I said zilch about closed registries.

I didn't say they were scratchable, or bullet-proof.

 

If you were answering my post, your focus was not in line with my statement, thoughts, or words.

You are arguing against a position I did not take, you loser.

It's the same complaint Sol has made, repeatedly.

 

You have a bad habit: using straw man arguments as a weapon of choice. All day.

Your river is two miles wide and one inch deep, Mr. Ray.

 

 

 

If you do understand what a "straw man" is, identify it. (refer to signature line, pls)

 

 

 

If you are still confused about straw man behavior, here is a parade of straw men:

 

 

BTW, ever notice how, when I characterize a post of yours, I also either link to it or quote it? I'd appreciate the same consideration, if you're able to rise to my level. Tom Ray

'Tom Ray', on 26 Jul 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

What's that thing called where you make up a really outrageous position and ascribe it to your opponent in an argument? I think it has a name… the STRAW MAN FALLACY

Tom Ray, on 25 Jan 2015 - 17:47, said:

By "curtailed" you mean, of course, confiscated.

Tom Ray, on 01 Mar 2015 - 02:08 AM, said:

...I have trouble laying aside your fantasy of confiscating all the unacceptable semi-auto weapons in America. ..

Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...27#entry4837443>

I can find no examples of colonial era Americans banning and confiscating guns so find no support for your idea that "well regulated" in the context of a militia means disarmed by the government.

http://forums.sailin...howtopic=163762>

I'm glad you no longer think our complaints about it "tiresome, weak, and vaporous."

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...=3#entry4903831>

. It would mean, to name one absurd example, that prisoners have a right to have guns in prison. I don't believe that and am pretty astonished that you think I would.

http://forums.sailin...=2#entry4841398

Jocal, before I listen to lectures about "skewed facts" let me ask you a question: do you still believe that a concealed weapons permit can act as any type of shield against gun confiscation in any state? Because if the answer is yes, you have such a fundamental fact screwed up that I'm not going to try to fix it.

http://forums.sailin...07#entry4616092>

...and I will quit complaining about your advocacy of racist policies.

http://forums.sailin...60457&p=4680878>

Glad you've come around since the days when you thought the gun lobby somehow snuck that word (i.e.transfer) into the bill. ?

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...=3#entry4903831>

(Tom Ray) If you're going to try to get me to defend the "more guns less crime" thing I'm going to again ask you where I said that. Again, you'll have to admit that I did not.

(Joe) Whew! I have to admit something I didn't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would happen to closed registries if the second amendment were "scratched" as you and Olsonist wish?

 

I think they'd be constitutional again. So I think you're arguing to make gun bans constitutional once again.

 

Did you not realize that would be the consequence of the position you and Olsonist share on the second amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to the straw man subject we were discussing?

Did you get it?

 

 

 

We will see some other gun restrictions in the future, I suppose. I expect that some closed registries are going to happen, because they are needed.

Machine guns have a closed registry...but (ahem) have experience no massive confiscation.

The second amendment is evolving. It's supposed to work that way, Tom.

 

Larry Pratt et al may have coached you to adore second amendment absolutism, and to maintain inflexibility.

My own suggestion is to stay loose, my man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: How many rounds should she get to protect herself from a Jokeauf?

 

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

 

A: As many as she needs.

 

NGS. I have wanted to ask you again about this imagery.

What was my alleged crime?

I plead that Tom DIaz, Mike the Gun Guy, Mark O'Mara, Evan de Phillippis, and I are merely de-bunking gun myths. We're looking for a healthier, more sustainable sport. Each of us has weighed in against catastrophic confiscation.

 

So...that woman has no cause to shoot me with one, or thirty, bullets.

Your imagery, and your thought process are quite violent, and are sustained.

Since I had heard that the SA Gun Club was non-violent, that their guns were for last resort, seriously, WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We will see some other gun restrictions in the future, I suppose. I expect that some closed registries are going to happen, because they are needed.

Machine guns have a closed registry...but (ahem) have experience no massive confiscation.

The second amendment is evolving. It's supposed to work that way, Tom.

 

Glad you got around to admitting that scratching the second amendment would affect run restrictions like closed registries, thus proving my argument was no straw man.

 

Since you finally want to talk about whether registries can lead to confiscation, I'll ask you again about what Cuomo said about confiscating guns.

 

 

...

Do you think he was talking about confiscating registered guns or doing something else?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be talking to yourself, again.

Our track record lacks quality conversations.

And you diddle yourself in the weeds, I think I won't go there with you, Tommie.

 

 

Bing search engine, enter: straw man. First link in the line:

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

From <http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:"Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We will see some other gun restrictions in the future, I suppose. I expect that some closed registries are going to happen, because they are needed.

Machine guns have a closed registry...but (ahem) have experience no massive confiscation.

...

 

OK, I can see you don't really want to discuss the issue of confiscation that you finally addressed.

 

Let's talk about the other consequence of the closed machine gun registry: the price of those guns.

 

Full-auto versions of common mean-looking rifles are very expensive because the supply is limited to those owned prior to 1986. I don't see the need to restrict those only to the rich collectors.

 

There was no need in 1986 and there is none today. That registry should be reopened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We will see some other gun restrictions in the future, I suppose. I expect that some closed registries are going to happen, because they are needed.

Machine guns have a closed registry...but (ahem) have experience no massive confiscation.

...

 

OK, I can see you don't really want to discuss the issue of confiscation that you finally addressed.

 

Let's talk about the other consequence of the closed machine gun registry: the price of those guns.

 

Full-auto versions of common mean-looking rifles are very expensive because the supply is limited to those owned prior to 1986. I don't see the need to restrict those only to the rich collectors.

 

There was no need in 1986 and there is none today. That registry should be reopened.

 

 

I "finally addressed" confiscation?

I made a good faith effort to address confiscation in January of this year.

You just jerked that discussion directly into airsoft gun affairs... four times.

It just wasn't a very intelligent discussion.

Jocal Posted 30 January 2015 - 02:16 PM

You only have a problem if some guns or all guns merit confiscation.

The second one is off the table.

The first one you are allowing to be controlled by extremists, who have being challenged by determined CT lawmakers, whose study group said that firearm lethality needs to be curtailed.

Gun safety isn't supposed to be easy, Tom.

Again, shouting "confiscation" in a crowded theater innit gonna get 'er done.

 

If you are now advocating machine guns on the streets of the USA, your social awareness is poor.

You need to be directed by someone like Shannon Watts or Bloomberg, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We will see some other gun restrictions in the future, I suppose. I expect that some closed registries are going to happen, because they are needed.

Machine guns have a closed registry...but (ahem) have experience no massive confiscation.

...

 

OK, I can see you don't really want to discuss the issue of confiscation that you finally addressed.

 

Let's talk about the other consequence of the closed machine gun registry: the price of those guns.

 

Full-auto versions of common mean-looking rifles are very expensive because the supply is limited to those owned prior to 1986. I don't see the need to restrict those only to the rich collectors.

 

There was no need in 1986 and there is none today. That registry should be reopened.

 

 

Finally?

I made a good faith effort to address confiscation here.

You jerked that discussion into airsoft gun affairs four times.

It wasn't a very intelligent discussion.

 

 

Jocal Posted 30 January 2015 - 02:16 PM

You only have a problem if some guns or all guns merit confiscation.

The second one is off the table.

The first one you are allowing to be controlled by extremists, who have being challenged by determined CT lawmakers, whose study group said that firearm lethality needs to be curtailed.

Gun safety isn't supposed to be easy, Tom.

Again, shouting "confiscation" in a crowded theater innit gonna get 'er done.

 

If you are now advocating machine guns on the streets of the USA, your social awareness is poor.

 

 

I agree that defining Airsoft guns as assault weapons subject to the kind of confiscation you propose for ordinary rifles like Billy's is not very intelligent. It seems extreme to me, as does defining Ruger 10-22's the same way.

 

Blaming me for the extremism and lack of intelligence shown by gungrabbers is pretty rich.

 

It would be nice if sensible people like yourself would get the extremists to classify things other than airguns and Ruger 10-22's as "battlefield" weapons. They're unlikely to listen to me, but might listen to a fellow advocate for gun control.

 

If you agree that airguns should not be defined as battlefield weapons. Do you at least agree with that?

 

I'm not sure how any of this prevents you answering a simple question:

 

Was Cuomo thinking of confiscating registered guns when he was asked what to do with them?

 

I think the answer is yes, which is why NY and Connecticut are having so much trouble getting people to comply with the registration law. We know it's signing up to have guns confiscated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We will see some other gun restrictions in the future, I suppose. I expect that some closed registries are going to happen, because they are needed.

Machine guns have a closed registry...but (ahem) have experience no massive confiscation.

...

 

OK, I can see you don't really want to discuss the issue of confiscation that you finally addressed.

 

Let's talk about the other consequence of the closed machine gun registry: the price of those guns.

 

Full-auto versions of common mean-looking rifles are very expensive because the supply is limited to those owned prior to 1986. I don't see the need to restrict those only to the rich collectors.

 

There was no need in 1986 and there is none today. That registry should be reopened.

 

 

Finally?

I made a good faith effort to address confiscation here.

You jerked that discussion into airsoft gun affairs four times.

It wasn't a very intelligent discussion.

 

 

Jocal Posted 30 January 2015 - 02:16 PM

You only have a problem if some guns or all guns merit confiscation.

The second one is off the table.

The first one you are allowing to be controlled by extremists, who have being challenged by determined CT lawmakers, whose study group said that firearm lethality needs to be curtailed.

Gun safety isn't supposed to be easy, Tom.

Again, shouting "confiscation" in a crowded theater innit gonna get 'er done.

 

If you are now advocating machine guns on the streets of the USA, your social awareness is poor.

 

 

I agree that defining Airsoft guns as assault weapons subject to the kind of confiscation you propose for ordinary rifles like Billy's is not very intelligent. It seems extreme to me, as does defining Ruger 10-22's the same way. Fine.It sounds like the existing law could be tweaked. But I doubt you can present a reasonable proposal.

 

Blaming me for the extremism and lack of intelligence shown by gungrabbers WTF? STRAW MAN ALERT, again is pretty rich.

 

It would be nice if sensible people like yourself would get the extremists to classify things other than airguns and Ruger 10-22's as "battlefield" weapons. They're unlikely to listen to me, that would depend on your credibility, mate. but might listen to a fellow advocate for gun control. I would represent your position, willingly. But it is peripheral in this matter.

If you agree that airguns should not be defined as battlefield weapons. Do you at least agree with that? So far as it goes, yes.

 

I'm not sure how any of this prevents you answering a simple (translation: leading/loaded) question:

 

Was Cuomo thinking of confiscating registered guns when he was asked what to do with them? How would I know that? Ask Cuomo.

Speaking for myself, my own preference would be to collect guns from high-risk indivduals. And to collect battlefield-type weapons, registered or not.

 

I think the answer is yes, which is why NY and Connecticut are having so much trouble getting people to comply with the registration law. We know it's signing up to have guns confiscated.

 

 

Here, compliance with law is being levered as a political tool. Yet any non-compliance has issues with being "law abiding," and with the constitution as well.

 

I recall a post you once made. You flat-out said you would shoot any gun confiscator at your doorway.

 

Tom, do you still hold that position? My question is on-topic. We are discussing confiscation, and non-compliance with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites