Sign in to follow this  
SC-Texas

Heller v. DC being heard today

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Dred Scot, Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald, who, by the way, was not Jack Miller, all have one thing in common.

Can you tell me what it is or should I tell you?

For conversation, multiple choice here. I get to choose between

  1. distortions about The People
  2. avoidance of CATO's 2nd A manipulations of The People
  3. mis-quoted case law from Miller without retraction
  4. nonsense about .22 assault weapons,
  5. incessant begging for the guns of progressives,
  6. serial race-baiting, and
  7. a fixation with Judge Taney. 

Does that tell you anything, Pooplius?

Share this post


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

Does that tell you anything, Pooplius?

You will avoid answering direct questions?

Share this post


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

You will avoid answering direct questions?

Nothing to discuss here. 

The People is a canard now. But the "core lawful purpose" of the Second Amendment is healthy, if the resulting gun mayhem is confined to the home.

The People are not the militia, and they will never be considered the militia on its face, Why? Because the respective armed mayhem of these parties is a false equivalence, legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to point out that this thread has literally been going on for 10 years now.  

Share this post


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

I would just like to point out that this thread has literally been going on for 10 years now.  

And we're almost, but not quite, to the point of determining that Dick Heller is a person.

As you may have noted elsewhere, grabberz are a bit slow to "get it" sometimes. I'm pretty sure badlat still doesn't get the idea that our .22's are not battlefield weapons. I know you said he did, but I'm not so sure. Actually, I'm sure. He doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 5/2/2018 at 4:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Heller did this. Heller drew the line with military weapon designs. Heller is not good enough for Tom. Tom needs a super-Heller, and none is on the horizon.


Was your .22 a weapon "most useful in military service" as the court said in the topic case, or did it have lawful uses for civilians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your loud issues lie within the Heller case law. You and Robert Levy need to make your case before the SC again. IMO, it won't go down the same this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2018 at 2:21 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And we're almost, but not quite, to the point of determining that Dick Heller is a person.

Dick Heller is a person, but it means little. You have serious problems here.

You never complete this discussion. Civilian people answer to one law, but soldiers and militia people answer to another. It has always been that way, and for good reason.

The Parker case first introduced gun rights for "the People" in 2007. The idea faces VERY BASIC legal limitations. One example is that the concept nullifies martial law. 

Quote

Source: The National Militia Act, Patrick J. Charles

However, in Parker v. District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals inaccurately defined what constitutes a select militia and a “well regulated militia,” mitigating the latter to nothing more than an armed citizenry:

[T]he modifier “well regulated” means that “[t]he militia was not individuals acting on their own; one cannot be a one-person militia.” We quite agree that the militia was the collective body designed to act in concert. But we disagree...that the use of “well regulated” in the constitutional text somehow turns the popular militia in the 1792 Act into a “select” militia that consisted of semi-professional soldiers like our current National Guard.298

The Parker court’s definition of what constituted the Founders’ “well regulated militia” defies both law and history. Neither the eighteenth century popular print culture,299 the debates concerning the National Militia Act,300 nor the writings of Timothy Pickering support such a proposition.301

(...)

The claim that a select militia was viewed as militarily superior to a “well-regulated militia,” is also an historical anomaly. The two militias were ideologically and physically equal in all regards except as to who comprised the militia. A “well-regulated militia” was comprised of all classes capable of bearing arms, while a select militia was a subset.

The numerous attempts to amend the National Militia Act also affirm this definition of a select militia. Both in 1796 and 1798, militia bills were proposed separating the national militia into a “select” and “reserved” corps.302 The “select corps” would be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of twenty and twenty-four years of age.303 Meanwhile, the “reserved corps” would be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between twenty-five and forty years old.304 The bills were rejected, however, because a select militia contradicted the “voluntary public spirit” that was inherent in a constitutional militia, and ultimately burdened one class of citizens over another.305

This brings us to the question: who constitutes the militia for the purposes of the “right to keep and bear arms” as a militia right? If we use the National Militia Act as the historical benchmark, the answer is those classes that are capable of bearing arms. While Individual Right scholars argue that this definition devalues the Second Amendment as a militia right,306 the truth of the matter is the constitutional purpose of a “well-regulated militia” was the “public good” and not individual preferences.307

 

 

Share this post


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

Civilian people answer to one law, but soldiers and militia people answer to another. It has always been that way, and for good reason.

Really?  Which laws do soldiers and militia answer to that civilians do not?  

Share this post


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

Really?  Which laws do soldiers and militia answer to that civilians do not?  

Hmm. You missed three of my posts. And you are ex-military, yet you have to ask. What a poser. A soldier is tried under military court; the standards are not equivalent.

Quote

 LOST AND FOUND: RESEARCHING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

ROBERT J. SPITZER* Oct. 2000

Some of the most interesting reading in Cornell’s book deals

with a subject often raised in the modern gun control debate –

personal self-defense. This is one instance where modern

sensibilities are similar to eighteenth and nineteenth century

practices and law, and where the sheer goofiness of some of the

contemporary gun debate is also much in evidence.

 

While a military weapon might be used for personal self-

defense, or a small side-arm might have military utility, as a

matter of law the activity of collective military defense was

always understood to be entirely different from an individual’s

personal self-defense.30

 

Quote

As previously noted, individual self-defense was protected for

centuries under the common law, and the Second Amendment is

irrelevant to that well-established legal principle and tradition.

 

(...) And the invocations of an armed citizenry struggling to overthrow

a tyrannical government arose from natural rights, not from the

Constitution or the Bill of Rights. When Americans fought to end

British rule, they were not only fighting against the British, but

for their own, indigenous American government. Once that

struggle was won, Americans traded violent overthrow for

peaceful change – through the podium, the ballot box, the jury

box, and the petitioning of their new government for the redress

of grievances.43

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3294&context=cklawreview

"The people" are not soldiers. They do not act as soldiers, legally. So Parker case law has some problems in this area.

Share this post


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

Hmm. You missed three of my posts.

Missed?  Yeah, let's call it that.....

Share this post


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

Dick Heller is a person, but it means little.

No, that's huge progress.

Now how about Jack Miller, who, by the way, is not Otis McDonald? Is he also a person?

Share this post


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

No, that's huge progress.

Now how about Jack Miller, who, by the way, is not Otis McDonald? Is he also a person?

You are all about Miller, which is neither here nor there these days. Heller is the case to quote, not Miller

When will you retract your bit about Miller saying squat about The People?

Where did you get that, anyway? Your Miller/People claim went the way of Brady's Best, but your indoor militia ideas were ahead of their time, and they are here to stay.

Quote

 

Share this post


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

When will you retract your bit about Miller saying squat about The People?

Where did you get that, anyway?

I got it from a secret source that you are certain to never actually read. Here's the quote:

Quote

Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.

 

Share this post


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

I got it from a secret source that you are certain to never actually read. Here's the quote:

 

I read your reason.com article on the new Kleck "study", and you didn't: KLECK PULLED THE ARTICLE WITHIN SIX DAYS.

You haven't read Heller's half a dozen gun control phrases.

I read twenty Patrick J. Charles articles. I read Merkel, and Spitzer too. (They are your un-doing in the courts.) I'm not sure you read your own Douglass content, base on your race-baiter behavior.

I'm not sure you've read Levinson. Care to discuss The Embarrassing Second Amendment this morning?

I don't read confused garbage about .22's very much. Worthy content is out there.

Share this post


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

...or you would know the secret source I used.

You are kinda lost these days. Insignificant little games are your forte. Your reading material is sadly regressive, as this matter progresses.

Tobaccospin.jpg

Share this post


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

You haven't read Heller's half a dozen gun control phrases.

You mean the ones that appear when you take a sentence or paragraph and pull many words out?

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I read twenty Patrick J. Charles articles. I read Merkel, and Spitzer too.

Pity that reading does not equal understanding. You might also try reading the ruling yourself, instead of taking the word of a 3rd party.

But since you claim to know it all, Joe, how about saying where Tom's quote comes from?

Share this post


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

You mean the ones that appear when you take a sentence or paragraph and pull many words out?

Pity that reading does not equal understanding. You might also try reading the ruling yourself, instead of taking the word of a 3rd party.

But since you claim to know it all, Joe, how about saying where Tom's quote comes from?

I don't claim to know much. I hold great wonder for our unfolding reality.

Dude, you are difficult to converse with. See your last line. Tom makes a lot of quotes, I wonder which one you are referring to. If you don't cite it, I'm not gonna run around guessing which one it might be. 

You and Tom and Jeff can't keep up with my reading habits. Spitzer's PhD is in Poly Sci, he finds the gun rights presentation as amusing. Merkel is curt, and peeved about the same approach. Cornell sounds patient. Levinson disagrees with all of them, in a classy way.

None of the four hides behind the racial issue, yet all six Libertarian authors seem to dwell on race. NOBODY hangs onto the racial issue like our Pooplius. Many have the content, and MacDonald takes it to the bank, but only Pooplius such cheeky abandon.

 

Share this post


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

Tom makes a lot of quotes, I wonder which one you are referring to.

It is really complicated, Joe. Especially when it is all in the same thread.

11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You and Tom and Jeff can't keep up with my reading habits. Spitzer's PhD is in Poly Sci, he finds the gun rights presentation as amusing. Merkel is curt, and peeved about the same approach. Cornell sounds patient. Levinson disagrees with all of them, in a classy way.

And you don't understand most of it, do you?

But you do get to offer your psychoanalysis of the authors. Of course, you do that in here as well, but only to those who disagree with you.

Still awaiting your "trashing MLK" post.

Share this post


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

It is really complicated, Joe. Especially when it is all in the same thread.

And you don't understand most of it, do you?

But you do get to offer your psychoanalysis of the authors. Of course, you do that in here as well, but only to those who disagree with you.

Still awaiting your "trashing MLK" post.

Not post, singular. SCores of posts since 2013.

DeadEye Dick sometimes comes across as green behind the ears. For a period, Tom went OCD and played MLK's gun permit denial like a baseball card.

Pooplius used MLK to justify a certain flavor of gun permit.

Don't shit on DeadEye Dick. Dont try to use DeadEye Dick to sell braile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 5/7/2018 at 2:22 AM, jocal505 said:

You and Tom and Jeff can't keep up with my reading habits. Spitzer's PhD is in Poly Sci, he finds the gun rights presentation as amusing. Merkel is curt, and peeved about the same approach. Cornell sounds patient. Levinson disagrees with all of them, in a classy way.

And you don't understand most of it, do you?

  • I can outline the intricacies of the Standard Model...but Pooplius can't say if he is for it, or against it. Yep.
  • I can take the half dozen historical examples in Heller and shred their relevance by providing context. 
  • I can show a lack of cohesion among and between these examples, and their lack of unified or national representation.
  • Name the historical issue, and I can quote the REAL experts from high-quality, peer-reviewd material from MacDonald briefs.
  • Both Heller and Wrenn called for comprehensive historical study, by others.
  • Clayton Cramer was used to define "bear arms" within Heller. He is a CATO writer who is no idiot, but is outclassed by others. Patrick Charles is comfortable as he adds the shit which Cramer left out...using digitalized formats, one historian quantifies the timeliness of the CATO law briefs which flooded the Heller court, and another counts "bear arms": 3 of 200 references regard person use.
  • The current laws of arms for self defence were cited by Lord Dunmore, of VA , against surly Colonists, as he confiscated the town's powder stores. No editors, judges, or lawyers challenged his public quotation of that current law.
  • LOL. Hmmm. There are 28 hotbed grievances in the Declaration of Independence, but no gun rights violations are cited.
  • I can show that your scholarship isn't just weak, it is embarrassing.

 

But more important is what you cannot provide: the rejection of castle doctrine by Blackstone. The reversal of the Statute of Northamption ~1710, fifty years before the FF, which Joyce Malcolm claimed.

To demonstrate the strength of what I say, I offer the SC in the summer of 2017. It exchanged internal memos from July to October, then declined 7-2 to discuss giving Mr. Peruta a shall issue permit in San Diego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 5:22 AM, jocal505 said:

Dude, you are difficult to converse with.

Dude, this probably simultaneously the funniest and most ironic thing I’ve seen here in a year. :lol::lol::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
On 5/7/2018 at 2:22 AM, jocal505 said:

(to bpm 57) Dude, you are difficult to converse with.

Dude, this probably simultaneously the funniest and most ironic thing I’ve seen here in a year. :lol::lol::blink:

Are you sure? I'm predictable, I go straight up the middle, with no games.  However, I avoid going down the third grader trail, to the weeds.

IMO the problem you have with me is the facts I have been able to scrounge up. I have support from experts, using reading habits and curiosity as tools. Fighting bullies is sometimes my motivation.

 

Let's play. You sir, have called me a liar probably forty times. Present one lie, one intentional falsehood, Mr. Jeffie. 

Share this post


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

I have support from experts, using reading habits and curiosity as tools.

So what did you think of Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Lopez case?

I know, I know, not that curious.

Share this post


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

So what did you think of Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Lopez case?

I know, I know, not that curious.

To answer that question, I would have to figure out what you are claiming, then begin factoring it with honest information. During that time, I would be asking myself why I am associating with someone who can't discern battle guns. And why associate with a race-baiter?

Aren't you the person who was dissembling the Miller case, without the class to retract that shit about Miller relating to "The People"? Aren't you the person who denied the federal ban on gun research, and never corrected that?

Why would I want the influence of a person who mentions Japan as pertinent to American gun suicides? You think the English Parliament never spelled out to King James II they would whup his ass with gunz for tyranny...after they had hung his father?

Sorry, you had your chances. No thanks on Lopez today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're not curious about any Supreme Court decision I have actually read?

2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Aren't you the person who was dissembling the Miller case?

A person who had read the case would know I'm not, as would a person who had read the topic case. Which explains why you don't know. You're only curious about the latest propaganda from TeamD grabberz.

Share this post


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

So you're not curious about any Supreme Court decision I have actually read?

A person who had read the case would know I'm not, as would a person who had read the topic case. Which explains why you don't know. You're only curious about the latest propaganda from TeamD grabberz.

You need creds Tom. BTW you have egg on your .22 caliber face. 

Share this post


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

Are you sure? I'm predictable, I go straight up the middle, with no games.  However, I avoid going down the third grader trail, to the weeds.

Hmm, yeah, you play it straight alright.

Anyone with a CCW is a vigilante intent on "mayhem"

We have all seen how you reacted to BL putting a gun on the street. Silence.

How about all your pop psychoanalysis and nicknames for anyone who disagrees with you?

Within the last few days, you accused someone of dredging something out of a DB - while your "evidence" was a link to a news article posted a day or 2 before. In another recent post, it was a link to a state gov't website.

Your dishonest "trashing MLK" bit.

Your deliberate misunderstanding of "shall issue"

Your dishonest "banned research" claims.

Your recent bit of calling people who disagree with you racist.

 

Now we have your latest winner:

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So what did you think of Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Lopez case?

I know, I know, not that curious.

To answer that question, I would have to figure out what you are claiming, then begin factoring it with honest information.

 

WTF are you even babbling about here? Tom is asking for your opinion - are you really incapable of offering an opinion without reading multiple position papers and flipping a coin?

 

I'd really like to know more about the Palmer case being "vacated", Joe. Maybe even include your evidence about how it led to Wrenn.

Maybe include a bit about Blackstone & castle doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So what did you think of Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Lopez case?

I know, I know, not that curious.

 To answer that question, I would have to figure out what you are claiming, then begin factoring it with honest information. During that time, I would be asking myself why I am associating with someone who can't discern battle guns. And why associate with a race-baiter?

Joe, take a deep breath and read what you just said. Why does it matter what Tom’s angle is?  He is asking your opinion on a case and what it means to YOU. Yet you are more interested in making an argument to counter before you even fucking know what the argument is. If any. 

Your post above ^^ is everything that is wrong with this place and more importantly everything that is wrong with YOU. 

Just saying. 

Share this post


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

To answer that question, I would have to figure out what you (Tom Ray) are claiming, then begin factoring it with honest information.

What can I say, Jeffie. I have studied the words of Pooplius for six years,  and now I have to consider the antics which are his trade. On the gun subject, we have flim-flam, which was a lot of fun to expose.

But get off it, why should I read Tom Ray on any other subject? He is a messenger delivering water, but yo, he muddies the water, doesn't he? Tom did it to himself, mate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 5/9/2018 at 4:04 AM, jocal505 said:

Are you sure? I'm predictable, I go straight up the middle, with no games.  However, I avoid going down the third grader trail, to the weeds.

Hmm, yeah, you play it straight alright.

Anyone with a CCW is a vigilante intent on "mayhem"

Geez, here we go again. But I don't care to be mis-quoted. DeadEye Dick's reading comnprehension is such that I must repeat myself.

When vigilantes are around, maybe one size does not fit all.

  • Vigilantism can be legal or illegal, now that we have accepted "stand your ground."
  • Vigilantism can be a chosen behavior, or can be imposed.  Did you hear the one about multiple bystanders facing utility knives on an airplane? They had to roll.
  • Vigilantism can be beautiful, or ugly.
  • It can exist consciously, or unconsciously.
  • Vigilantism can be imposed moderately, or lethally, depending on how it is set up.
  • Hells bells, MLK needed SDU, because of redneck vigilantes, but he was no vigilante, going by his writings.
  • On the other extreme, we had a vigilante militia called Quantrill's Raiders, and they beheaded the protectors of slaves.
  • And lastly, we have ol' @Shootist Jeff: some vigilantes dream of catching rapists in the act, and want action.
Quote

(bpm57, supposedly quoting Joe) Anyone with a CCW is a vigilante intent on "mayhem"

You are a real DeadEye, bpm, so please don't quote me saying shit I didn't say.

 

Share this post


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

Joe, take a deep breath and read what you just said.

I said that honest sources are needed, to contrast anything Tom Ray is claiming. 

Share this post


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

I'd really like to know more about the Palmer case being "vacated", Joe. 

READ SAILING ANARCHY  The District Attorney of D.C. vacated Judge Scullin. She nullified Palmer, and ran Scullin out of town, back to upstate NY for him. Incredible story...and then it morphed into Wrenn. Hollywood stuff. Here's Adam Winkler before the Judge's vacation in upstate NY...

Quote

 

Share this post


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

Your dishonest "trashing MLK" bit.

Yo, asshole, don't try to use Political Anarchy to paint a superficial picture of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

Share this post


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

Your recent bit of calling people who disagree with you racist.

Cite it, buster. I called Tom a race-baiter, for cause. And I called him a Holywood red-neck too. And I have asked him to explain his body of edgy racial content, which spans the hemispheres. This is Tom as I first began to provoke him about his trashing of MLK. I give you TR:

Quote

BIG JOY IN MUDVILLE  (Tom Ray, Apr. 4 2015)

  • On First Base: the Black Panthers are coming with their gunz
  • Second Base: MLK's Church is now about second amendment choices, source: Brietbart.
  • Third Base (so skanky it was deleted by Tom in his own reference to his post): Judge Taney is coming.  A search shows Tom  dangles Taney for us 21 other times, and Dred Scott 12 times.
  •  The Tom Ray Racebaiter Grand Slam : Bloomberg throws blacks, disproportionately, against a wall, with stop and frisk policies.
  • On deck: Chicago

 

 

All of this Tom race bit, offered in zingers by himself,  is sketchy, when considered together. Look,  I'm uncertain of the degree of racism, it's not my biz or concern, but discussing the subject is.

I just want to discuss the subject of attaining racial equality, and to discuss this shit beyond race-baiting. I think Tom uses race-baiting to de-rail the discussions for some reason.

And automatically discussing guns whenever we discuss race is anther perversion of the same conversation. I don't think Tom is a conscious, committed racist, but he seems wary of a real discussion about attaining racial equity. Both Tom and Jeff lack evidence of suitable introspection mechanisms, IMO.

 

Share this post


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

Joe, take a deep breath and read what you just said. Why does it matter what Tom’s angle is?  He is asking your opinion on a case and what it means to YOU. Yet you are more interested in making an argument to counter before you even fucking know what the argument is. If any. 

Your post above ^^ is everything that is wrong with this place and more importantly everything that is wrong with YOU. 

Just saying. 

You like direct answers, so here goes. This is what it's like dealing with Jeffie.

The other day you employed a dog whistle, content repeated for about the sixth time, about women's use of guns being supported by a snippet of the CDC/IOM 2013 Priorities for Research.

That report is 120 pages, and you have shown no evidence of having read it. And the CDC does not support guns as a protection for women, which was explained to you. with honest and cited context, after three of your six mentions. So WTF?

You know better, but you intentionally repeat the falsehood. So yes, Simple Jeff, I kinda factor that in when you say shit.

I knew your constitution when you wouldn't correct your four cited statements blaming blacks for the vast majority of gun violence. You lost creds, just because: I have to factor that in when I deal with you.

 

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:
16 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Joe, take a deep breath and read what you just said.

I said that honest sources are needed, to contrast anything Tom Ray is claiming. No suitable retractions?  Same for Jeff.

 

 

Share this post


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

And lastly, we have ol' @Shootist Jeff: some vigilantes dream of catching rapists in the act, and want action.

Cite? Its almost like you are unable to actually read what was written, so you fill in all the words you imagine are there.

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The District Attorney of D.C. vacated Judge Scullin. She nullified Palmer, and ran Scullin out of town, back to upstate NY for him. Incredible story...and then it morphed into Wrenn.

Who knew that a DA had the ability to vacate a court opinion? Why, it is almost like you are just making shit up because you think everyone in here is in the dark about how courts work. So, how about a citation for this DA order vacating an opinion?

And, yet again, a cite for Palmer morphing into Wrenn.

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 but discussing the subject is.

I guess you will have to live with the disappointment of not being able to set the parameters of discussion in this forum.

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

The other day you employed a dog whistle

What is it with leftists and everything being a "dog whistle"?

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I said that honest sources are needed, to contrast anything Tom Ray is claiming. 

He didn't claim anything, he asked for your opinion on a SCOTUS ruling, and linked to the ruling. You do realize that SCOTUS rulings can be found at many law websites, right?

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Political Anarchy to paint a superficial picture of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I'd comment about doubling down on your reading issues, Joe, but its been way more then 2 times already.

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You are a real DeadEye, bpm, so please don't quote me saying shit I didn't say.

Go figure..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2014 at 2:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

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

@bpm57 This is Tom Ray's brain on the Palmer decision. This thing flopped, the the CATO players behind this case (Levy and Gura) succeeded with Wrenn.

After a  long fight with three phases, shall issue has been imposed on D.C. not by Palmer, but by Wrenn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 2:16 PM, bpm57 said:
On 5/10/2018 at 5:26 AM, jocal505 said:

And lastly, we have ol' @Shootist Jeff: some vigilantes dream of catching rapists in the act, and want action.

Cite? Its almost like you are unable to actually read what was written, so you fill in all the words you imagine are there.

Ah, bpm. wants rape quotes, from Jeffie. Bpm is clueless about Jeffie's rape fascination, though it's all over the place. I just came across this gem somewhere. Jeff seems to have issues.

Quote

On 5/22/2015 at 12:24 AM, JBSF said:

...

And honestly, joe - I'm not trying to use your wife's thing against you - but only because maybe it will finally get through to you this way.... because you seem to have this mental block about people "taking the law into their own hands and that any act of self-defense is vigilantism. So, which would you do is you came home one day and there was a gang of rapists on top of your wife and she was screaming in pain and fear? Would you call the po-leece and wait patiently for them to arrive to stop the attack? Or would you go to your garage and get your gun and stop them yourself? Serious and honest question joe....

 

But I guess in your world, you would rather have your wife raped again while waiting on the Po-leece rather than do something about it then and there.

 

Here's your @Shootist Jeffquote, DeadEye. Jeffie is the local anti-rape squad. What do I win?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 5/10/2018 at 3:48 PM, jocal505 said:
On 5/10/2018 at 1:47 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

To answer that question, I would have to figure out what you (Tom Ray) are claiming, then begin factoring it with honest information.

What can I say, Jeffie. I have studied the words of Pooplius for six years,  and now I have to consider the antics which are his trade. On the gun subject, we have flim-flam, which was a lot of fun to expose.

But get off it, why should I read Tom Ray on any other subject? He is a messenger delivering water, but yo, he muddies the water, doesn't he? Tom did it to himself, mate.

 

jeoy,  stop fucking up the quotes.  I didn't say that above.  That was YOUR quote box, not mine!

Share this post


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

Ah, bpm. wants rape quotes, from Jeffie. Bpm is clueless about Jeffie's rape fascination, though it's all over the place. I just came across this gem somewhere. Jeff seems to have issues.

Quote

On 5/22/2015 at 12:24 AM, JBSF said:

...

And honestly, joe - I'm not trying to use your wife's thing against you - but only because maybe it will finally get through to you this way.... because you seem to have this mental block about people "taking the law into their own hands and that any act of self-defense is vigilantism. So, which would you do is you came home one day and there was a gang of rapists on top of your wife and she was screaming in pain and fear? Would you call the po-leece and wait patiently for them to arrive to stop the attack? Or would you go to your garage and get your gun and stop them yourself? Serious and honest question joe....

 

But I guess in your world, you would rather have your wife raped again while waiting on the Po-leece rather than do something about it then and there.

 

Here's your @Shootist Jeffquote, DeadEye. Jeffie is the local anti-rape squad. What do I win?

Oh FFS!  You "just" came across it???  Yeah right.  Stalker Database alert!  Stalker Database Alert!

But hey, thanks for posting that again.  Its an excellent example of what I've been talking about.  We are what..... 3 years on now since I asked you that direct question and you have still yet to answer it directly and succinctly without reems of cunt-n-pasting going on and tap-dancing around the issue.  Its a black and white thing - you either wait for the police while your wife if being raped or you get your gun and kill them dead to stop the attack.  I don't know a single man that would hesitate to do the later, yet you and Bent both tap-danced around the issue for a while.  At least in the end, bent got around to actually saying that yes, after careful consideration of AUS laws and having no other recourse, he would reluctantly pick up a gun and shoot them to protect his wife (But only if her life was in danger).  You on the other-hand, still are tap-dancing.  I know you are a passivist and it must pain you to consider taking another human's life - and it should pain you - but you just cannot wrap your head around the fact that sometimes bad people need to die to protect good people.  And sometimes its ok when a private citizen does that.  And it is not Vigilantism when that happens. 

Even your posts just above damn you even more about your whole vigilante schtick.  You call everything that involves self-defense as a vigilante act, and then you try to obfuscate by calling some good and some bad.  NO, that is NOT how this works.  Do you even understand the term "Vigilante"?  Your own writings strongly suggest you do not.  Here, I'll help you out because I'm such a nice guy:

Quote

 

vigilante
ˌvɪdʒɪˈlanti/
noun
 
  1. a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

 

 

 

Please refer to the bolded above in the definition and repeat after me "WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY".....  Self-defense by its very definition is LEGAL.  As long as a victim follows the law on when Self-defense may be used, it is legal.  Legal Self-Defense is not under ANY circumstances a vigilante act.  The mere act of carrying a gun for self-defense is not vigilantism.  If a woman is attacked walking home from work and uses her gun to protect herself, she is not a vigilante in any way, shape or form.  EVER!  A woman carrying a gun around in her purse for self-protection makes her no more a vigilante than me carrying a fire extinguisher around in my car makes me a fire fighter.  

Share this post


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

@bpm57 This is Tom Ray's brain on the Palmer decision. This thing flopped, the the CATO players behind this case (Levy and Gura) succeeded with Wrenn.

After a  long fight with three phases, shall issue has been imposed on D.C. not by Palmer, but by Wrenn.

Fascinating, Joe are you ever going to post your DA vacated Palmer ruling? Or are you avoiding admitting that a DA has no power to overturn a judge?

Or did you possibly get the case name wrong?

Then again, you have no idea what the difference is between Palmer and Wrenn, so how would you even recognize you are wrong about DAs vacating a judges ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2018 at 11:38 AM, Shootist Jeff said:
On 5/13/2018 at 9:57 AM, jocal505 said:

Ah, bpm. wants rape quotes, from Jeffie. Bpm is clueless about Jeffie's rape fascination, though it's all over the place. I just came across this gem somewhere. Jeff seems to have issues.

Quote

On 5/22/2015 at 12:24 AM, JBSF said:

...

And honestly, joe - I'm not trying to use your wife's thing against you - but only because maybe it will finally get through to you this way.... because you seem to have this mental block about people "taking the law into their own hands and that any act of self-defense is vigilantism. So, which would you do is you came home one day and there was a gang of rapists on top of your wife and she was screaming in pain and fear? Would you call the po-leece and wait patiently for them to arrive to stop the attack? Or would you go to your garage and get your gun and stop them yourself? Serious and honest question joe....

 

But I guess in your world, you would rather have your wife raped again while waiting on the Po-leece rather than do something about it then and there.

 

Here's your @Shootist Jeffquote, DeadEye. Jeffie is the local anti-rape squad. What do I win?

Oh FFS!  You "just" came across it???  Yeah right.  Stalker Database alert!  Stalker Database Alert!

But hey, thanks for posting that again.  Its an excellent example of what I've been talking about.  We are what..... 3 years on now since I asked you that direct question and you have still yet to answer it directly and succinctly without reems of cunt-n-pasting going on and tap-dancing around the issue.  Its a black and white thing - you either wait for the police while your wife if being raped or you get your gun and kill them dead to stop the attack.  I don't know a single man that would hesitate to do the later, yet you and Bent both tap-danced around the issue for a while.  At least in the end, bent got around to actually saying that yes, after careful consideration of AUS laws and having no other recourse, he would reluctantly pick up a gun and shoot them to protect his wife (But only if her life was in danger).  You on the other-hand, still are tap-dancing.  I know you are a passivist and it must pain you to consider taking another human's life - and it should pain you - but you just cannot wrap your head around the fact that sometimes bad people need to die to protect good people.  And sometimes its ok when a private citizen does that.  And it is not Vigilantism when that happens. 

Even your posts just above damn you even more about your whole vigilante schtick.  You call everything that involves self-defense as a vigilante act, and then you try to obfuscate by calling some good and some bad.  NO, that is NOT how this works.  Do you even understand the term "Vigilante"?  Your own writings strongly suggest you do not.  Here, I'll help you out because I'm such a nice guy:

Quote

 

vigilante
ˌvɪdʒɪˈlanti/
noun
 
  1. a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

 

 

 

Please refer to the bolded above in the definition and repeat after me "WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY".....  Self-defense by its very definition is LEGAL.  As long as a victim follows the law on when Self-defense may be used, it is legal.  Legal Self-Defense is not under ANY circumstances a vigilante act.  The mere act of carrying a gun for self-defense is not vigilantism.  If a woman is attacked walking home from work and uses her gun to protect herself, she is not a vigilante in any way, shape or form.  EVER!  A woman carrying a gun around in her purse for self-protection makes her no more a vigilante than me carrying a fire extinguisher around in my car makes me a fire fighter.  

Hey joey, why have you suddenly gone silent on my vigilante rebuttal / beatdown of you?  I get that the logic I present above^^ is unassailable.  But you would at least think it would deserve a response along the lines of "I begrudgingly agree with you Jeff.  Legitimate uses of a gun for self-defense are not vigilante acts" or "You're right, a woman carrying a gun in her purse for self defense while on the way home from work does not make her a vigilante".

 

 

Share this post


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

Self-defense STRAW MAN ALERT by its very definition is LEGAL  As long as a victim follows the law on when Self-defense STRAW MAN ALERT may be used, it is legal.  Legal Self-Defense STRAW MAN ALERT  is not under ANY circumstances a vigilante act. 

Self defense is fine. Armed self defense, with a license to protect oneself lethally, falls in a tougher legal category.  Armed mayhem to settle personal differences, or for "confrintations," was NOT okay outdoors in English law after 1289.

The Heller history was made-up, discredited shit, we find:  the Libertarian law brief writers call that version The Standard Model. And Mr. Jeff, you can't discuss Darrel Miller's legal particulars, Armed Self Defense and The State, but I linked Miller and quoted his interesting evidence four times.   YOUR LOSS>>>

3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Oh FFS!  You "just" came across it???  (i.e. Another graphic rape scene from Jeffie)

Correct. I followed someone's link on PA, and read one page of that old thread. There was Jeffie, with vivid visualization of another rape in progress, hoping for gun mayhem to solve this problem. 

Quote
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not trying to use your wife's thing against you... 

...you came home one day and there was a gang of rapists on top of your wife...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shootist Jeff you don't relate to being a vigilante, you just need to explain how you are not one of them, frequently.

Apparently you want the law taken into the hands of rape bystanders, which I don't mind. What I object to is the immediate attachment of YOUR thoughts and actions to gun mayhem, since most bystanders are unarmed. I insist that the unarmed rape bystanders take action too, immediately. You are the anti-rape squad in our community, so I hope you approve. If they are unarmed vigilantes, that works okay for me. If they are armed, it's your lucky day Jeff, let them fire away to give you the satisfaction you crave.

 

I have studied this a bit: let's attach a source to the definition of "vigilante" which you chose, then let's just give it ten years. In an extremely ironic twist, "stand your ground" laws (which mask manslaughter/viglantism such as George Zimmerman's), are being challenged for unequal racial outcome. LMFAO.

Moreover, the subject of defining vigilantism is is a state of flex: the definition is being re-defined by Larry Pratt's crowd. Even the Wikipedia staff are quarreling about it: they defined vigilantism as being protected legally in places just two years ago, then pulled the definition, which I had quoted on our boards.

By international standards, we have become known as a dangerous country, a land filled with an armed vigilante mentality. Stupid shit, Jeffie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 8:44 AM, jocal505 said:

The District Attorney of D.C. vacated Judge Scullin. She nullified Palmer, and ran Scullin out of town, back to upstate NY for him. Incredible story...and then it morphed into Wrenn. Hollywood stuff.

If you have forgotten, Joe, you haven't given any cites to a law blog or court filings showing that this was the case in Palmer.

I don't care about the hard on you have for CATO, SAF, NRA, etc. Don't bother linking that kind of nonsense. Link to a court ruling (or law blog discussing) that shows exactly what you say above.

You claim to play it straight, and not act like a 3rd grader - do so for once in this case. If not, please stop using words when you clearly have no idea what they mean in a legal context.

Spare me the "I've read" defense. I can read a book on neurosurgery, but the amount of learning I got out of it would be very close to zero.  I would certainly never boast about how smart I am because I read it.

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

. In an extremely ironic twist, "stand your ground" laws (which mask manslaughter/viglantism such as George Zimmerman's), are being challenged for unequal racial outcome.

And here we have Joe, once again doing his patented "cite where I call CCW holders vigilantes". 

I also note that you are calling for more white perp "outcomes" to make "stand your ground" "fair". Joe the pacifist,  just wants more dead whites to make the law acceptable.

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Self defense is fine. Armed self defense, with a license to protect oneself lethally, falls in a tougher legal category.  Armed mayhem to settle personal differences, or for "confrintations," was NOT okay outdoors in English law after 1289.

That is so fascinating, Joe, but I can't help but note we are not in the UK. And you have heard of "dueling", right? I mean, you have been unable to answer why "self defense" was a legitimate reason for a pistol license in the UK until the 1930s..

I also can't help but notice that your be-all-end-all of common law was over 700 years ago. You do realize that laws change over time?

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

you just need to explain how you are not one of them, frequently.

Your loose association with the English language requires us to repeat ourselves. Several times.

On 5/10/2018 at 9:48 AM, jocal505 said:

I knew your constitution when you wouldn't correct your four cited statements blaming blacks for the vast majority of gun violence.

Do you write this stuff with a straight face, Joe? You are the person who links endless black gun violence stats whenever race based gun control is mentioned.

Of course, you then claim that your love of "may" laws have nothing to do with race. And that your inability to say that race based gun control is bad has nothing to do with keeping guns away from blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 7:06 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/5/2018 at 6:44 AM, jocal505 said:
On 5/2/2018 at 4:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Heller did this. Heller drew the line with military weapon designs. Heller is not good enough for Tom. Tom needs a super-Heller, and none is on the horizon.


Was your .22 a weapon "most useful in military service" as the court said in the topic case, or did it have lawful uses for civilians?

This question was never answered. So it's pretty funny that Joe asked me the same question:

3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

My decision to own a battlefield .22 is no one's business but my own.

Would you say your .22 is a weapon "most useful in military service"? If not, it's probably okay. 


No, I wouldn't say that. The fact that I think it's OK is kind of the point of this thread about banning it.

Share this post


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

This question was never answered. (So I keep it handy in the database I don't have)

The classic unanswered question is this one:

Tom Ray, are you a supporter of The Standard Model, or not? 

Silence is a checkmate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't keep the Ed's database but do know how to search it.

I'm more a fan of Supermodels than standard ones. But if you have any pics I'll be happy to consider them.

Share this post


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

I still don't keep the Ed's database but do know how to search it.

I'm more a fan of Supermodels than standard ones. But if you have any pics I'll be happy to consider them.

You are a charlatan if you duck this subject.  The Rise and Fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s Thesis on the Anglo-American Right, see p. 1795

 

You see, after the development of Heller, the real historians became alarmed. Two years later, within MacDonald, as a unified group, they penned and authorized their best understanding of the factual history. Your Libertarian crowd has had since 2010 to defend The Standard Model before these united scholars, and the Libertarian law brief writers have failed to do so.

NOTE: Both Heller and Wrenn (dog whistle for @bpm57) called for a comprehensive review of history.  

 

Scalia quotes Lois Schwoerer multiple times in Heller. Unknown to him, Schwoerer had made a direct challenge of Joyce Malcolm in 1983.  Schwoerer's viewes were supported and fleshed out in the amicus brief of the united scholars: her name was placed first among them. Malcolm has had 35 years to answer that challenge, and she has gone silent, like Tom.

Tom Ray, the loudest elk in the herd,  can't weigh in for The Standard Model, or against it. Just sayin'.

Share this post


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

Silence is a checkmate.

Just following your example, Joe.

Unless you want to answer:

Was your .22 a weapon "most useful in military service" as the court said in the topic case, or did it have lawful uses for civilians?

Share this post


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

Just following your example, Joe.

Unless you want to answer:

Was your .22 a weapon "most useful in military service" as the court said in the topic case, or did it have lawful uses for civilians?

I'm asking a good question. I want to discuss the quality of the Heller scholarship in play. You are playing TR games, about something inconsequential.

You are a charlatan, a poser boi, with Kleck for research, Malcolm and Scalia for History, and .22's for an intellectual holiday.

Try the swamp gas.

Share this post


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

I'm asking a good question: Would you say your .22 is a weapon "most useful in military service"?

I agree. It's a very good question. Why won't you answer it?

Share this post


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

I agree. It's a very good question. Why won't you answer it?

Silly ass bullshit, going nowhere. See sig line mate.

 

 

You are the whiz-bang who can kind of explain the vapor and nuances of Raich. You have expressed endless and eloquent disappointment with Kelo vs. New London. You are a very loud, bright guy, on a soap box every morning, after reading reason.com.

And then, just like a dumbass, you hide behind the plight of American blacks. You use the deadly gun violence numbers among blacks to feign the idea that high gun ownership rates do not increase gun mayhem. It's the same race-baiter gag you used ad nauseam a few years ago. You went OCD on this idea already.

Tom Ray, you think this is cute? How many different ways do you use, to hide behind the misfortune of African Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 5/10/2018 at 6:48 AM, jocal505 said:

I knew your constitution when you wouldn't correct your four cited statements blaming blacks for the vast majority of gun violence.

Do you write this stuff with a straight face, Joe? You are the person who links endless black gun violence stats whenever race based gun control is mentioned.

Bpm, what do you make of the numbers of black gun violence? I think it's tragic. I think a bloodbath has developed in one element of our society.

I think gun proliferation isn't working out very well, for African Americans in general. I think the gun violence  numbers appear to be amplified, or multiplied as it were, among blacks. I hope you will join in to minimize this gun mayhem, among blacks or whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:
22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Self defense is fine. Armed self defense, with a license to protect oneself lethally, falls in a tougher legal category.  Armed mayhem to settle personal differences, or for "confrintations," was NOT okay outdoors in English law after 1289.

That is so fascinating, Joe, but I can't help but note we are not in the UK.

Hold on, pardner. The key elements of Heller rest upon English Law, according to YOUR elk. But the entire narrative is full of holes, contradictions, and broad claims which are unsupported. The historical examples used make no sense when taken in context, and the examples lack continuity. The idea that Blackstone's principles were reversed before he was born is laughable. The history presented in both Heller and MacDonald is a shambles, and I can discuss the specifics.

Joyce in her prime.JPG

Share this post


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

I also can't help but notice that your be-all-end-all of common law was over 700 years ago. You do realize that laws change over time?

Dude. Read SAILING ANARCHY. On the gun scholarship end of things, it's pretty knowledgeable. You missed the facts, as presented on our boards.

Quote

 

Quote
  • Text of the Statute of Northhampton, Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)

Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king's servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the king's precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King's pleasure.

 

 And that the King's justices in their presence, sheriffs, and other ministers in their bailiwicks, lords of franchises, and their bailiffs in the same, and mayors and bailiffs of cities and boroughs, within the same cities and boroughs, and borough-holders, constables, and wardens of the peace within their wards, shall have power to execute this act.

 

And that the justices assigned, at their coming down into the country, shall have power to enquire how such officers and lords have exercised their offices in this case, and to punish them whom they find that have not done that which pertained to their office.

 

Bpm, remarkably,  THIS STATUTE NEVER CHANGED OR EVOLVED except for one detail.  Men were granted legal protection to use arms in their own homes. 
Bazinga: castle doctrine.

Quote

The Unbroken Timeline of Gun Control: the Non-Evolution of the Statute of Northampton

      Each footnote goes to legal text, unambiguously and immediately, via this link:

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

 

(1285 AD) first formal weapons control statutes formed in England

(1325) a pattern emerged, of attacks and armed intimidation upon both scholars, and court justices

1329 The Statute of Northampton was written and recorded, forbidding carrying guns in public.

(see text above)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 5/15/2018 at 9:50 AM, jocal505 said:

Self defense is fine. Armed self defense, with a license to protect oneself lethally, falls in a tougher legal category.  Armed mayhem to settle personal differences, or for "confrintations," was NOT okay outdoors in English law after 1289.

That is so fascinating, Joe, but I can't help but note we are not in the UK. And you have heard of "dueling", right? I mean, you have been unable to answer why "self defense" was a legitimate reason for a pistol license in the UK until the 1930s..

I also can't help but notice that your be-all-end-all of common law was over 700 years ago. You do realize that laws change over time?

Joe, you missed answering most of it. I mean, you have heard of dueling, haven't you?

In any event, Joe, I still note that we are not in the UK, and it has been over 700 years since the laws you misleadingly "cite"

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 THIS STATUTE NEVER CHANGED OR EVOLVED 

If you want to live in a place where your only 100% legal way to defend yourself is with a loud whistle, Joe, feel free to start packing your bags. You should already be used to the weather.

Or you might read the various briefs and amici in Wrenn. You might find out that there are counterexamples indicating your "things were 100% this way" isn't correct.

 

 

Share this post


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

riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons

How does one distinguish a regular weapon with a "dangerous or unusual" one, Joe?

Share this post


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

How does one distinguish a regular weapon with a "dangerous or unusual" one, Joe?

Big swords were considered bad form. You need a definition which works for you, pretty damn soon.

Share this post


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

Big swords were considered bad form. You need a definition which works for you, pretty damn soon.

So you won't attempt to clear up the question, Joe?

Share this post


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

So you won't attempt to clear up the question, Joe?

What??  Are you new here???

Share this post


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

What??  Are you new here???

Maybe I'll just die of shock if he actually did so.

Hell, the guy can't even offer an opinion on Seattle politics, and he lives there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 1:02 AM, bpm57 said:
On 5/18/2018 at 12:48 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

What??  Are you new here???

Maybe I'll just die of shock if he actually did so.

Hell, the guy can't even offer an opinion on Seattle politics, and he lives there.

joke-al never actually answers questions - he just overwhelms you with cunt-n-pastings.  He thinks sheer volume = coherent thoughts.  I've asked him to answer some basic questions in his own words and he simply is incapable of it.  I suspect because he is an ESL learner, given his often difficult to read postings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html

 

For most of its history, the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. This is fairly clear from the text, which says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, a right that has nothing to do with military service.

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that we must understand the Constitution’s words exactly as the framers understood them, disconnected the right to keep and bear arms from the need for a well-regulated militia, in part because he concluded that the phrase “bear arms” did not refer to military contexts in the founding era.

By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion: “Although [bear arms] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.” 

But Scalia was wrong. Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.

A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.

But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. Writing about the Second Amendment in 1995, historian Garry Wills put it succinctly: “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” 

And in 1840, in an early right-to-bear-arms case, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge Nathan Green wrote: “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” 

Then there’s this exchange during oral arguments in Heller. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said that “bear arms” meant to carry them outside the home. Justice David Souter asked him, “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?” Clement replied, “I would say that and so would [James] Madison and so would [Thomas] Jefferson.” 

 

But Souter wasn’t convinced: “In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

Still, the Supreme Court based its interpretation of the Second Amendment on more than an incorrect definition of “bear arms.” According to Scalia, the framers “undoubtedly thought” the amendment protected the universal right of self-defense, even though nowhere does the Constitution mention self-defense. It doesn’t mention hunting, either.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning may be flawed, but its decision — at least for now — is binding: The Second Amendment protects everyone’s right to tote a gun. But no court can dictate the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Even after Heller, we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.

Share this post


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

For most of its history, the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia.

This is just not true.

If it were true, the Supreme Court would have told Jack Miller that he had no standing as he was not in militia service. But they didn't.

If it were true, the Supreme Court would not have thought that non-militiaman Dred Scot could keep and carry arms wherever he went if his rights were recognized. But they did say that.

Even noted liberal constitutional law expert Lawrence Tribe rejected this idea before the Supreme Court did in the Heller case.

2 hours ago, Sean said:

These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.

I'd say that is mostly but not exclusively true, as they mentioned.

The natural meaning of "the people" hasn't changed all that much.

Share this post


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

This is just not true.

If it were true, the Supreme Court would have told Jack Miller that he had no standing as he was not in militia service. But they didn't.

If it were true, the Supreme Court would not have thought that non-militiaman Dred Scot could keep and carry arms wherever he went if his rights were recognized. But they did say that.

Even noted liberal constitutional law expert Lawrence Tribe rejected this idea before the Supreme Court did in the Heller case.

I'd say that is mostly but not exclusively true, as they mentioned.

The natural meaning of "the people" hasn't changed all that much.

I choose to believe it, you choose not to. No surprise there. 

Share this post


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

I choose to believe it, you choose not to. No surprise there. 

I'll take the word of the supreme court going back over 150 years over the words of an english professor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

I'll take the word of the supreme court going back over 150 years over the words of an english professor.

We’re talking about one SC justice in one case. 

Share this post


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

We’re talking about one SC justice in one case. 

Well, I guess that shows your understanding of Tom's reply.

Tom wasn't really giving an opinion, he was pointing out 2 supreme court cases seem to show that your english professors understanding in this is mistaken.

 

Share this post


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

Well, I guess that shows your understanding of Tom's reply.

Tom wasn't really giving an opinion, he was pointing out 2 supreme court cases seem to show that your english professors understanding in this is mistaken.

 

There’s my problem. I tend to not pay attention to what Tom says. 

.22

Share this post


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

There’s my problem. I tend to not pay attention to what Tom says.

Yet you first responded to him.

But feel free to believe your english professor, when there are 2 well known cases that suggest he is mistaken

 

Share this post


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

Yet you first responded to him.

But feel free to believe your english professor, when there are 2 well known cases that suggest he is mistaken

 

Of course I believe the professor; his position fits nicely with my disdain for the gun nut culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say a constitutional law professor like Lawrence Tribe knows a bit more about constitutional law than an English professor.

Here's what he has to say:

Quote

It is true that some liberal scholars like me, having studied the text and history closely, have concluded, against our political instincts, that the Second Amendment protects more than a collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and national guard units.

The Supreme Court, having informally rejected the idea simply by hearing the Miller case, formally rejected it a year later.

But I said it, so Sean won't listen. Because refusing to listen to other perspectives is how we learn.

Share this post


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

The natural meaning of "the people" hasn't changed all that much.

If Jack Miller had been female, he would have been out of luck before the SC. 

Miller does not touch on gun rights for The People. It supports rights for those males who can act in concert for defense of the state.*

Quote

A 2nd Amendment Militia question
Uncooperative Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy
November 8, 2016...You always omit the part about "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." Why were they even hearing a case from a guy who was not enrolled? And why have they done it twice since? They keep making the same mistake! And the individua...

 

Liberal gun owners, if any, take note
 November 4, 2016 Uncooperative Tom replied to a topic in Political Anarchy
...I think they heard his case because they knew that "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" described him. The way I read that, only able bodied males have the 2nd amendment rights. you don't mean THAT, do you? No more than I mean only white, land…

 

The NRA $peak$
 October 9, 2016 Uncooperative Tom replied to Uncooperative Tom's topic in Political Anarchy
...A modern interpretation would be all people physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Combining that answer with the one from post 66, the amendment covers individuals and weapons that could be useful for the common defense.

 

NSFWThe "gun culture" and the media
 March 19, 2016 Uncooperative Tom replied to Shootist Jeff's topic in Political Anarchy
Do you think those three men were physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense? I do. That means they're the mliitia, just like you and me. You weren't paying attention then. Again, I don't often participate in these discussions for a reason, but I have on a couple of occasions…

 

 

*Research by Tom Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 5/22/2018 at 6:07 AM, Sean said:

For most of its history, the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia.

This is just not true.

If we follow SC cases. it is true. This is why Miller was a debacle for CATO: Miller's collective rights had to go.

Tom doubles down on smoke and mirrors to ever, EVER present Miller. IMO, Tom is likable, but not very good at this.

Share this post


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

I'd say a constitutional law professor like Lawrence Tribe knows a bit more about constitutional law than an English professor.

Here's what he has to say:

Quote

It is true that some liberal scholars like me, having studied the text and history closely, have concluded, against our political instincts, that the Second Amendment protects more than a collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and national guard units.

Thinking that Lawrence Tribe is a libertarian is almost as ignorant as trying to discuss a case you haven't read, Joe.

But not quite. Try a bit harder to surpass your own ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 6:07 AM, Sean said:

Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’

 

Clayton Cramer was the CATO writer quoted by Scalia.

Quote

Cramer was wildly inaccurate. For some reason, a shameful sham was employed by Scalia.

In the digital age, a scholar named Kozuskanich tried to school Scalia in McDonald, but failed:

Quote

Merkel 2010, HELLER AS HUBRIS, AND HOW MCDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO MAY WELL CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL WORLD AS WE KNOW IT 64pgs

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=lawreview

The problem for Justice Scalia is that the record respecting public usage of the phrase "bear arms" overwhelmingly supports a dominant military meaning just as clearly as do the records from legislative chambers. As reported by careful historian Nathan Kozuskanich in the peer-reviewed and highly respected Journal of the Early Republic, an electronic search of Charles Evans's American Bibliography, a comprehensive collection of surviving books and pamphlets from 1690 to 1800, yields 210 hits for "bearing arms" and its cognates other than those contained in reprints of the Bill of Rights and other government papers.26 According to Kozuskanich, 202 of these uses (96.2 percent) are unambiguously military and collective, not private and personal.27 The same search on Early American Newspapers, a database of over 120 American newspapers from 1690 to 1800, yields 143 hits, 140 of which (97.9 percent) Kozuskanich describes as clearly related to rendering military service or performing militia duty.28

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites