Sign in to follow this  
SC-Texas

Heller v. DC being heard today

Recommended Posts

 

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

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

 

... 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

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

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

 

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

My proposal would be to treat mean-looking rifles the same as more-powerful hunting rifles.

 

I know you'll find that unreasonable, so my backup is to try to get people like you to convince the extreme anti-gunners that airguns and 10-22's are not "battlefield weapons" and shouldn't be banned and confiscated. Can we get a tweak here?

 

I really don't see how I'm to blame when anti-gunners come up with ridiculous definitions like calling an airgun a battlefield weapon. I wouldn't point out their silliness if it didn't exist in the first place.

 

I never said I'd shoot any gun confiscator at my doorway. I'd be interested to see the post of mine you think said that. Until I do, it's just more shit about me that you made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My proposal would be to treat mean-looking rifles the same as more-powerful hunting rifles.

 

I know you'll find that unreasonable, so my backup is to try to get people like you to convince the extreme anti-gunners that airguns and 10-22's are not "battlefield weapons" and shouldn't be banned and confiscated. Can we get a tweak here?

 

I really don't see how I'm to blame when anti-gunners come up with ridiculous definitions like calling an airgun a battlefield weapon. I wouldn't point out their silliness if it didn't exist in the first place.

 

 

 

Why have you gone, for the fifth time, to this petty footnote (airguns and 10-22's ) in the confiscation debate?

You have begun the discussion you wanted with silliness.

 

 

 

I never said I'd shoot any gun confiscator at my doorway. I'd be interested to see the post of mine you think said that. Until I do, it's just more shit about me that you made up.

 

Okay. But that is a non-denial denial.

I'll repeat my question.

Would you shoot a legally authorized gun confiscator at your door?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never said I'd shoot any gun confiscator at my doorway.

 

Okay. But that is a non-denial denial.

I'll repeat my question.

Would you shoot a legally authorized gun confiscator at your door?

 

 

Why don't you want to talk about which guns should be subject to confiscation? I think the list should not include airguns as "battlefield weapons."

 

Can we at least start by agreeing on that much about confiscation?

 

As to your accusation framed as a question this time, I really don't know how to make it more clear. Whether the debate is the death penalty, SYG, or other self-defense, my position is that you shoot when you have to and not when you don't.

 

Besides, I'd never register my guns, so it's unlikely the confiscators would appear. You won't answer my question about which guns Cuomo was thinking of confiscating, but that doesn't mean I am unaware of the answer. It's registered guns he would come after. That will never include mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was neither a yes, nor a no. It was another dodge, featuring a straw man made of of registration.

 

Your answer (to whether you would shoot rather than give up your gun) would depend on your nebulous term "when you have to," which does not define "have to", or even refer to yourself!

 

 

About the straw man. Of course, no registration is required to seek out or find certain guns. Take the case of a GVRO (Gun Violence Restraining Order) in California, for example.

Since the 9-0 ruling on Castleman, shoving one's wife in any of the fifty states could ban you from having guns by federal authority.

 

You badgered me into the topic of confiscation, from another thread, so answer the damn question.

If ordered to give up your piece for some legal reason, would you, Tom Ray, do so without shooting the thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think a law officer knocking on the door is a deadly threat and I would not shoot one.

 

Of course, if we're talking about a no-knock raid, all bets are off. A guy just got acquitted for shooting cops in one of those foolish operations.

 

A federal law banning people from having guns does nothing to help authorities find unregistered guns. I'm not sure how you think it could. Please explain how that would work?

 

Besides, that's still not an answer to my question.

 

Do you think Cuomo was talking about going through court documents looking for restraining orders and then doing house-to-house searches of those people? What about all the gun owners who did not commit crimes? How are their guns to be confiscated without registration?

 

I still think he was talking about confiscating registered guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think a law officer knocking on the door is a deadly threat and I would not shoot one.

 

Of course, if we're talking about a no-knock raid, all bets are off. A guy just got acquitted for shooting cops in one of those foolish operations.

 

A federal law banning people from having guns does nothing to help authorities find unregistered guns. I'm not sure how you think it could. Please explain how that would work?

 

Besides, that's still not an answer to my question.

 

Do you think Cuomo was talking about going through court documents looking for restraining orders and then doing house-to-house searches of those people? What about all the gun owners who did not commit crimes? How are their guns to be confiscated without registration?

 

I still think he was talking about confiscating registered guns.

 

Thanks for the straight answer.

As stated, Mr. Cuomo's thought process and plans are for him, and him only, to explain.

I do not fear the man. And I do not fear registration. You are like a Twilight Zone character who does fear them. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks for the non-answer.

 

But I still know which guns he meant to go after, even if you won't admit it.

 

Your refusal to admit it and discuss honestly your opinion that guns like Billy Backstay's should be registered, banned, and then confiscated is the reason people like JBSF and Len are becoming so inflexible on guns.

 

You want an "assault weapon" ban that would cover his rifle, right?

 

And you don't want any of those awful "grandfather" clauses watering it down this time, right?

 

So you think his gun should be taken away, right?

 

And how would they find it if he did not register it? Waiting for him to shove his wife and invoking federal law seems a sketchy plan at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I don't think a law officer knocking on the door is a deadly threat and I would not shoot one.

 

 

Thanks for the straight answer.

 

A better response would have been, "Thanks for the straight answer and I apologize for making up stuff about you again, and also for not even making an attempt to find the alleged post I was talking about."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, I don't think a law officer knocking on the door is a deadly threat and I would not shoot one.

 

 

Thanks for the straight answer.

 

A better response would have been, "Thanks for the straight answer and I apologize for making up stuff about you again, and also for not even making an attempt to find the alleged post I was talking about."

 

 

Thanks for putting your words in my mouth.

I wouldn't mind apologizing, but I'm not the only forum member who remembers the statement.

I'm pleased at your present position, Tom. Good on ya.

 

Yo, you might need to avoid the subject of "making shit up".

 

TOM RAY, STRAW MAN ON PARADE

 

'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…

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3852152

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 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

Tom has introduced the subject of "making stuff up."

Take a look at this. It went on for forty days, and only ended because of the Charleston S.C. racial massacre:

 

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....m#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

 

Besides, I'd never register my guns, so it's unlikely the confiscators would appear. You won't answer my question about which guns Cuomo was thinking of confiscating, but that doesn't mean I am unaware of the answer. It's registered guns he would come after. That will never include mine.

 

 

The confiscators are reading sailing forums and are taking note of who has guns. They will still come knocking at your door to collect your guns, airsoft rifles and slingshots. Probably knives too. Better hide your Henckels......

 

 

Why did you bother posting this?

How long have you been stuck in third grade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, I don't think a law officer knocking on the door is a deadly threat and I would not shoot one.

 

 

Thanks for the straight answer.

 

A better response would have been, "Thanks for the straight answer and I apologize for making up stuff about you again, and also for not even making an attempt to find the alleged post I was talking about."

 

 

Thanks for putting your words in my mouth.

I wouldn't mind apologizing, but I'm not the only forum member who remembers the statement.

I'm pleased at your present position, Tom.

 

 

My position hasn't changed. If there's someone else who has access to your imagination and remembers what you do, he hasn't come forward to say so.

 

You're remembering something that never happened about me.

 

Don't you believe that a person's thought process and plans are for him, and him only, to explain. I explained my thought process. To continue to say that the one you made up is the real one is a lie and is inconsistent with your view that people can explain their own positions but no one else can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might have remembered it wrong. And we might not have.

 

But I am reminded of another, very vivid memory about two cousins who got shot up in an old coot's basement.

You got all high tone, and defended castle doctrine principle. Later, you denied that.

(Btw, in the context of the thread, you used this bit as a dodge to avoid PBO's thoughtful premise that "self defense" in the USA meant big violence.)

 

THE STORY OF OLD COOT AND THE BURGLAR COUSINS

Tom Ray, on 25 Jan 2015 - 6:33 PM, said:

I wrote that there was no thread in which a homeowner ambushed an intruder. There is not one. Unless you were talking about something else I wrote?

Jocal Posted 26 January 2015 - 05:09 PM

There was a thread where this old coot had been stolen from repeatedly. He told his neighbors he had a hiding spot in the basement from which he could pick the burglars off.

Around New Year's, a male and female cousin entered the home. He shot the male in the basement, from a dark hiding spot. When the female came down the stairs to investigate, he shot her descending the stairs like Tom would, ASAP, in the legs. She fell down and laughed at the homeowner; he executed her with the gun, but claimed castle doctrine self-defense. I can't locate my link, but he drew a tough sentence.

The issue Tom and I struggled over was imminent harm, or something. Bottom line: Tom chooses the earliest legal moment to shoot, while claiming broadly to choose "last resort" . Hmm, that is why castle doctrine is a slippery slope. Stand your ground is simply outdoor castile doctrine, and yo outdoors is where Tom likes the gunplay.

The NRA value system and CCW stuff flaunt vigilante action. It is what it is, and it's NOT a last resort.

Tom Ray, on 24 Jan 2015 - 07:26 AM, said:

No, I would not shoot an unidentified person. Rule 4.

No, I would not choose the earliest legal moment to shoot, and nothing I have posted would lead a rational person to that conclusion. Which might explain why you characterize, instead of quoting, what I say.

You must have mistaken me for someone who supports SYG, but I bet you can't find a single post confirming your view.

Basically, you're a lying sack o shit as usual, Joe. Why don't you attack views I express instead of ones you make up?

Jocal Posted 26 January 2015 - 05:09 PM

That's a bit strong, Tom. We had a specific discussion, about the old coot shooting the girl, and we easily agreed the execution shot was a foul.

But actually, I remember, lucidly, that we disagreed on the first shot. Along the lines of "last resort", I offered that even if an intruder were in my house, simply shooting a girl's leg, the first body part descending the stairs, was marginal, since the leg didn't necessarily show imminent harm; no weapon being visible. That is, I would need to see a weapon, or be charged physically or advanced on after a robust warning before shooting.

Then and other times, you go into some legal concept where an intruder is by his presence itself, acting the legal definition of lethal or other legalese therefore there is a legal green light to fire away. I thought you said you'd shoot at any part of an intruder, based on XYZ law.

If I understood your former shoot-the leg policy correctly, well, my value system is different.

If I somehow misunderstood...(since you feel I have mis-represented your position), then I cheerfully apologize, and am pleased in your confirmation of gun use as a truly last resort.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&p=4822914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We might have remembered it wrong. And we might not have.

 

 

No might about it. Remember who the final authority is here.

 

 

 

As stated, Mr. Cuomo's thought process and plans are for him, and him only, to explain.

 

And my thought process and plans are for me, and me only, to explain.

 

But since you seem to feel free to make up things that I thought and said, how about doing the same for Cuomo?

 

Do you think he was talking about confiscating registered guns or some other kind?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point to make about confiscation is in the limited right, of course.

Any action should be limited and reasonable.

If certain details of weapons definition are wrong, they should be fixed; the fact that the laws are not perfect does not nullify legitimate, limited confiscation.

Connecticut's AW/LCM owners have themselves criminals, in a form of gun culture conspiracy, IMO.

 

Confiscation is not just a big word; it has nuances.

Boothy has demanded better gun confiscation from felons...and he is correct, IMO.

 

 

R. Booze Posted 15 April 2015 - 08:45 AM

I think we should start here first, don't you?

California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people

Despite being able to take weapons owned by felons and the mentally ill, state officials say staff shortages and funding cuts have slowed seizures.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165145&p=4918940

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We might have remembered it wrong. And we might not have.

 

No might about it. Remember who the final authority is here.

 

How is the credibility of this "final authority"?

 

Tom Ray Posted 21 June 2015 - 11:01 AM

No, I have never advocated arming anyone.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165463&p=4988354

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We might have remembered it wrong. And we might not have.

 

No might about it. Remember who the final authority is here.

 

How is the credibility of this "final authority"?

 

Tom Ray Posted 21 June 2015 - 11:01 AM

No, I have never advocated arming anyone.

 

Allowing people the choice of whether to arm themselves is what I advocate and what you oppose.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165463&p=4988354

 

 

Just fine. I added back the rest of my statement to clarify that there's a difference between allowing people a freedom and subsidizing their weapons.

 

Now, can we get back to Billy's evil "assault" rifle and the questions you ignored?

 

You want an "assault weapon" ban that would cover his rifle and that naughty magazine he registered, right?

 

And you don't want any of those awful "grandfather" clauses watering it down this time, right?

 

So you think his gun should be taken away, right?

 

And how would they find it if he did not register it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were discussing your credibility, weren't we? No comment, I see.

 

Too bad you tossed your own truthfulness in the toilet, because messengers need credibility.

--I don't want discuss these matters on your level, the level of useless "Brady's Bests".

--I am alarmed, and offended, by "I have never advocated arming anyone."

--Your series of research ban denials were the tip of the iceberg.

--The Tom Whoppers are just not acceptable.

I am concluding that you just can't do any better.

What it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upthread somewhere, Tom maintains that I have not absorbed Heller, and only quote one paragraph.

I still have a lot of nuance to learn from Heller, but the more I study it, and the more the Supreme Court avoids strengthening it, the more trouble I think the NRA, SAF, and GOA are in.

 

--In several places of the majority opinion, they clearly enumerate working restrictions. Collectively, they approve viable gun control.

--Since Heller, using math, about 80% of the lower court decisions, basically, have supported gun control.

--The SC's refused to strengthen gun rights outdoors (Drake v. Jejerian) in 2014.

--A few weeks ago the SC refused to clarify the issue of disabled indoor guns in SF.

 

The writer below is an ex- Brady exec named Dennis Henegan, yes. But based on merit of content, I would hold his writings against Clayton Craymer (a prolific pro-gun writer) any day of the week. Three weeks after the Heller decision, Henegan cautioned that Heller would work against the gun lobby. Exactly seven years have passed, and his words, so far, read like prophecy.

 

The Heller Paradox: A Response to Robert Levy.

...The Heller decision should prove to be a sharp disappointment to the gun lobby and other Second Amendment extremists.

First, it is clear that there are not five votes on the Supreme Court for applying a “strict scrutiny” standard to gun laws. This was an important setback for Heller and a great victory for public safety.

Second, the majority took the highly unusual step of commenting on the constitutionality of numerous laws not at issue in the case, making it clear that a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful.” These include

(1) prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons (which the Court found were held lawful under early state Second Amendment analogues);

(2) prohibitions on firearms possession by felons and the mentally ill;

(3) laws forbidding firearms in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings;

(4) laws imposing “conditions and qualifications” on the commercial sale of arms (which could include background checks, waiting periods, licensing, etc.);

(5) bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons” (which could include machine guns and assault weapons); and

(6) laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.

Then, in a telling footnote, the Court adds that its list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures… does not purport to be exhaustive.”

 

I've read Heller a bit, but still have a lot to learn.

 

Tom, I'll debate Heller subtleties with you, right here, if you can avoid straw man tangents, race baiting, and Brady's Best in the responses.

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites