Sign in to follow this  
SC-Texas

Heller v. DC being heard today

Recommended Posts

On 4/1/2018 at 5:15 AM, jocal505 said:

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 dogballs assault weapons,
  5. incessant begging for the guns of progressives,
  6. serial race-baiting, and
  7. a fixation with Judge Taney. 

Hi Tom. Are you a man without a historian?

Quote
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

(to Tom) A guy in your position needs to support the Standard Model, and you don't dare do that in my modest company. LMFAO

This will be a long day, I think I'll read what I choose. :o

Share this post


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

This will be a long day, I think I'll read what I choose. :o

That would be a good line to utter right after you tell the book club you haven't read the topic book.

Try to get it on video. I'd love to see the looks on their faces.

Share this post


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

That would be a good line to utter right after you tell the book club you haven't read the topic book.

Try to get it on video. I'd love to see the looks on their faces.

Which book do you want me to not read, Mr. Ray? You are forgetting the book report part. The book reports get posted on PA, where the community can rate their quality.

The point here is that I am not afraid of your scholarship. I have read a bit of your authors. I can demonstrate that I have, since I found others, cited hereabouts for a year or so, who tear your sources to shreds. You must be embarrassed about The Standard Model by now, if you actually read my stuff. You sure as hell have not sorted any specifics.

Now it's your turn to face my sources, intelligently. That's how we play on PA.

Share this post


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

The NRA morphed to join this crowd after an inner revolt in 1977. This group, featuring Don Kates after 1978, gathered around the writings of Joyce Lee Malcolm, who was stretching Tudor History. This whole bit was shot down by English historian Lois Schwoerer in 1983, within two years of its inception. As time progressed, her work was generally supported and strengthenedwithin the academic community.

Hi joe - so Joyce Lee Malcom was writing 2A and English History books in the late 70s and early 80s???  I'm just trying to get my timeline correct, thanks.

Share this post


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

Which book do you want me to not read, Mr. Ray?

Anything you can find by this Ann Rand person you mentioned. Never heard of her myself.

Share this post


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

Hi joe - so Joyce Lee Malcom was writing 2A and English History books in the late 70s and early 80s???  I'm just trying to get my timeline correct, thanks.

Her first notable work, Disarming History, came out in 1981. Keying off Clayton Cramer's Why Footnotes Matter,  she busted Michel Bellesiles for including trumped-up research in his writing. Bellesiles was professionally disgraced in this highly charged political environment and soon became a bartenter.

What is damn interesting to me is that  both Malcolm and Cramer went on to produce work considered disgraceful at the level of peer review. Cramer defined "bear arms" for Scalia, and he was hopelessly wrong.

Quote

--For Malcolm’s first published article, see Joyce Lee Malcolm, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition, 10 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 285 (1983) [hereinafter Malcolm, The Right of the People].

 

--However, two years earlier, the National Rifle Association reprinted and distributed Malcolm’s 1980 paper delivered to the Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute of Radcliffe College. See JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, DISARMED: THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN RESTORATION ENGLAND (1981) [hereinafter MALCOLM, DISARMED].

 

1983, Malcolm's first article, Right of the People,  Charles  footnote 357

358. See MALCOLM, DISARMED, supra note 357.

357. Malcolm’s first professionally published article on the subject appeared around the same time as Don B. Kates’s influential Michigan Law Review article, and the latter relied on the former “heavily.” Kates, supra note 168, at 204, 206–07, 215.

Her early contemporaries:

168. Don B. Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 MICH. L. REV. 204 (1983).

169. Id. at 216–17. 170. Id. at 215–16.

 

1974, David T. Hardy and John Stompoly arguably wrote the first Standard Model article to make this connection with similar evidence. See Hardy & Stompoly, supra note 40, at 70

 (“First, as used by the framers, the term ‘Militia’ referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms, and not merely to those persons enrolled in formal state military units. Thus, even should the second amendment be construed to protect only members of the ‘Militia’ its protections would extend to all persons capable of bearing arms.”).

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Anything you can find by this Ann Rand person you mentioned. Never heard of her myself.

MLK and Tom Ray and Judge Taney walk in to a bar...

Share this post


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

They probably pay him to fight for his country, indirectly.

I'm sure they send "senior historians" to combat all the time, especially those that never mention a rank. 

21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Mr. Charles had no opinion until he read every single colonial gun law. He found a heavy militia setting, and militia intent behind the Second. You should check him out, or offer someone who disputes him well.

We all know he is your perfect man, Joe. He reads the stuff you are unwilling to, then gives his _opinion_ on it.

Share this post


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

nonsense about dogballs assault weapons

Joe, you really should stop advertising your ignorance of both current firearm bills and history. Especially since this has been explained to you more then once.

 

Share this post


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

incessant begging for the guns of progressives

You should probably not drink before posting, Joe. Or is it dementia that makes you forget the circumstances around your fellow (D) cheerleader becoming an "unlicensed firearm dealer"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 2:13 PM, bpm57 said:

We all know he (Patrick J CHarles) is your perfect man, Joe.

He's a warrior, and therefore is flawed IMO. The military industrial complex payed for my finest research.

Quote

He reads the stuff you are unwilling to, then gives his _opinion_ on it.

He's an historian. He sorts historical facts, and context. he identifies motives and intent. A picture emerges, and that picture builds a conclusion, which becomes keener as other knowledge is uncovered, and either accepted or rejected. As the picture gains focus (from more and more daylight), we see both the details and overview better.

The Standard Model authors are living in a bunker, with no daylight, and they are exchanging campfire stories which bpm57 thrives on. Tom and Jeff are the story tellers. 

They hijacked the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. This upsets me and my friends.

Share this post


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

The military industrial complex payed for my finest research.

I have my doubts that he did it on "company" time. If he did, I'll have to conclude that his area has far to large a budget for the "work" they are doing.

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

as other knowledge is uncovered, and either accepted or rejected.

You don't realize how funny it is that you word it this way.

But it is nice of you to actually admit that "your guys" ignore anything that doesn't fit their conclusions.

 

Share this post


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

Heh. I should have known Jocelyn would like a book like this:

71nDsy1pTJL._AC_US218_..jpg

He hasn't said that I'm wrong about his choice of author, so I guess he really does want to read a childrens book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS!  Even the guy who created this thread (a decade ago) gave up on it 7 years ago and quit PA altogether no doubt because over the top nuttery of the gun nutters on this thread. 

SAD!

Share this post


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

Heh. I should have known Jocelyn would like a book like this:

71nDsy1pTJL._AC_US218_..jpg

It would be nice if you gave me credit for that name for at least a little while.

Sniff.....

Share this post


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

But it is nice of you to actually admit that "your guys" ignore anything that doesn't fit their conclusions.

Which evidence or info are you referring to? Which researcher? Where was it published? Where's the link to this ignored stuff?

Wanker.

Share this post


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

It would be nice if you gave me credit for that name for at least a little while.

Sniff.....

Hey, I said it was funny in the thread where you first used it.

Share this post


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

FFS!  Even the guy who created this thread (a decade ago) gave up on it 7 years ago and quit PA altogether no doubt because over the top nuttery of the gun nutters on this thread. 

SAD!

Hey gaytor, I thought you claimed to be a newbie and not a sock of anyone.  How does a newbie have any clue about a 10 year old post and a poster who left that long ago.  You can't even search that far back with the search function, so don't claim to have used it to find out.  

BTW - been to the playboy mansion lately?

Share this post


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

FFS!  Even the guy who created this thread (a decade ago) gave up on it 7 years ago and quit PA altogether no doubt because over the top nuttery of the gun nutters on this thread. 

SAD!

Some ten year old thoughts seem to me just as relevant today. For example:

On 3/18/2008 at 12:35 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:
SC-Texas said:
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
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Some ten year old thoughts seem to me just as relevant today. For example:

 

^^^^ From the Butthurt Files of Tom's ghost database...  Actually, Sol shows deep concerns over the past three years.

Share this post


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

Hey gaytor, I thought you claimed to be a newbie and not a sock of anyone.  How does a newbie have any clue about a 10 year old post and a poster who left that long ago.  You can't even search that far back with the search function, so don't claim to have used it to find out.  

BTW - been to the playboy mansion lately?

Dimwit.  Click on the OP’s name and up pops the join date and also the last active date. You for example joined Nov 3,  2003.  Post date are shown under the subject title. No search needed. How do you not know this after 15 years?

Jesus but your a stupid fuck.

PS I am fakenews and I have not been to the Playboy Mansion lately.

Share this post


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

Which evidence or info are you referring to? Which researcher? Where was it published? Where's the link to this ignored stuff?

Well Joe, I'm just taking you at you word when you write things like the following:

On 10/23/2018 at 7:20 AM, jocal505 said:

which becomes keener as other knowledge is uncovered, and either accepted or rejected.

I can only read that to say you are more then willing to reject anything that doesn't agree with your antigun crusade.

 

Share this post


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

Well Joe, I'm just taking you at you word when you write things like the following:

I can only read that to say you are more then willing to reject anything that doesn't agree with your antigun crusade.

 

So you don't have any specifics to discuss. Just a general malaise again today. 

Well what I've heard is that historians accept the solid stuff, as a body, and reject the poorly supported stuff.  This explains how Malcolm, Kates, Hardy, and Halbrook became non grata. Why dont you ever present their strengths?  

 

--See Brief for English/Early American Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (No. 08-1521) (supported by twenty-one scholars and historians);

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_RespondentAmCuEnglishHistorians.authcheckdam.pdf

Share this post


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

So you don't have any specifics to discuss.

As usual, you are unwilling to defend what you wrote.

In the naive hope that you might actually read something new, here is an example of incomplete history filed in Wrenn by DC and its amici.

"In Rex v. Knight, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76 (K.B. 1686), the jury acquitted Sir John Knight of charges that he “did walk about the streets armed with guns” and that he went into a church with a gun, thereby “going or riding armed in affray of peace.” The word “affray,” used as a noun, meant “the state produced by sudden disturbance or attack; alarm; fright; terrror. Obs.”4 In accordance with that accepted usage, “The Chief Justice said, that the meaning of the statute … was to punish people who go armed to terrify the King's subjects.” Id., 3 Mod. 118, 87 Eng. Rep. 76 (emphasis added)."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn-v-DC_Corrected-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Historians-Legal-Scholars-and-CRPA-Foundation-in-Support-of-Appellees-and-in-Support-of-Affirmance.pdf

Starting on header page 18, or footer page 6.

I guess the statue of northampton might not of meant the same thing then as claimed by the people you quote, Joe.

 

Share this post


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

As usual, you are unwilling to defend what you wrote.

In the naive hope that you might actually read something new, here is an example of incomplete history filed in Wrenn by DC and its amici.

"In Rex v. Knight, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76 (K.B. 1686), the jury acquitted Sir John Knight of charges that he “did walk about the streets armed with guns” and that he went into a church with a gun, thereby “going or riding armed in affray of peace.” The word “affray,” used as a noun, meant “the state produced by sudden disturbance or attack; alarm; fright; terrror. Obs.”4 In accordance with that accepted usage, “The Chief Justice said, that the meaning of the statute … was to punish people who go armed to terrify the King's subjects.” Id., 3 Mod. 118, 87 Eng. Rep. 76 (emphasis added)."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn-v-DC_Corrected-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Historians-Legal-Scholars-and-CRPA-Foundation-in-Support-of-Appellees-and-in-Support-of-Affirmance.pdf

Starting on header page 18, or footer page 6.

I guess the statue of northampton might not of meant the same thing then as claimed by the people you quote, Joe.

 

You need this completed. Sir John Knight was not acting  as a citizen. He was a landed Protestant who had been sent on a mission.   

Quote

 Charles,THE FACES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTSIDE THE HOME:, p12 

In this case, Sir John Knight was cloaked with governmental authority because he committed the act in accordance with the Mayor and Aldermen of Bristol.

footnote 136  Sir John Knight’s Case, (1686) 87 Eng. Rep. 75 (K.B.). 

 The fact that the incident in question involved the participation of government officials is affirmed by the Calendar of State Papers.  See CALENDAR OF STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC: JAMES II, 1686-7, at 118 (May 1, 1686)

(“The King, being informed that the Mayor and some other magistrates of Bristol lately seized upon a priest, who was going to officiate privately in a house there . . . and having received an account that Sir John night was not only the informer but a busy actor in the matter by going himself to search.”) (emphasis added); id. (June 7, 1686)

           (Response. Sir John Knight to Earl of Sunderland:)

(“But in regard the Duke of Beaufort’s letter to the Mayor of Bristoll has helped me to one most considerable objection, not only against myself but against the Mayor and Aldermen, as if they acted by my influence, I think it not amiss to make a defence whilst with little trouble it may be cleared.”).

  Knight was originally arrested for “several seditious practices.”   Id. (May 22, 1686).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Knight case is funny stuff. And you, sir are a poorly informed poser.

Quote

(“Information is preferring against Sir John Knight for creating and encouraging fears in the hearts of his Majesty’s subjects.”). 

145 Knight talked about his defense in a June 7, 1686 letter to the Earl of Sutherland.  He defended his actions by acting in conjunction with the Mayor and Aldermen.  See CALENDAR OF STATE PAPERS DOMESTIC, supra note 136 (June 7, 1686) (Sir John Knight to Earl of Sunderland).  Posted above

The jury agreed with this defense, finding Knight to be “loyall.”  See 1 LUTTRELL, supra note 144, at 389

(“Sir John Knight, the loyall, was tried at the court of kings bench for a high misdemeanour, in goeing armed up and down with a gun att Bristoll; who being tried by a jury of his own citty, that knew him well, he was acquitted, not thinking he did it with any ill design . . . ’tis thought his being concerned in taking up a popish priest at Bristoll occasioned this prosecution.”).    146 3 THE ENTRING BOOK OF ROGER MORRICE, supra note 139, at 307.

p30 CLEVELAND STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:1

 Knight admitted that he was armed upon going to the church, but refused to concede that he was disaffected.145  In explaining the turn of events, Knight also informed the King’s Bench of an assault and identifiable threat to his person.146  Days earlier, two Irishmen had been waiting outside Knight’s home to assault his person.   After waiting to no avail, the Irishmen approached a woman for Knight’s whereabouts, and brutally beat her for failing to reveal the location.147  In addition to this incident, there was another involving Mack Don, who Knight claimed to have assaulted his person, although no charges were ever brought against Don.148  It was for these reasons that Knight confessed to the court that he always “rode with a Sword and a Gun,” and had a number of armed attendants,149 which had been the nobility’s allowance under the common law.150  However, Knight never rested his innocence or legal defense on preparatory selfdefense or the nobility’s common law right to go armed with lawful attendants.  It was not the act Knight was being charged with, nor was any of the “attendants” charged in violation of the Statute. 

Instead, Knight defended the case in terms of “active Loyalty” to the crown151 and even cited Richard II’s statute exempting governmental officials from punishment.152  It is a historical point of emphasis that when Knight was armed to apprehend the priest he was under the license of the king’s service.  It is for this reason the King’s Bench doubted the conduct “came within the equity and true meaning of the Statute of Northampton about goeing armed . . . .”153  The Chief Justice even scolded the Attorney General for indicting Knight.  The Chief Justice stated, “f there be any blinde side of the Kings business you will al[ways] lay your finger upon it, and shew it to the Defendants . . . . ”154  

 

Here again, we see the difference between myth and reality. Those that read Sir John Knight’s case as a turning point in the popular understanding of the Statute of Northampton are purporting a historical myth to advance a Second Amendment agenda.155  Indeed, Knight was accused of walking “about the streets armed with guns,”156 but the jury acquitted Knight because he was a government official that was well-affected to the crown.157

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1938950

 

Share this post


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

And you, sir are a poorly informed poser.

Blah, blah blah. Someone turns evidence and gets off scot free.

No comments about the other cases listed in the filing, Joe?

No comments about the state cases regarding carry?

No comments about colonial era laws mandating that one go armed?

But lets talk about posers, Joe. You can't even manage to read a motion to dismiss without lying about who filed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a comment.

This thread is ancient and extremely boring. As evidence by it’s small number of posts.

Isn’t there a gun forum for you gun freaks to post on?

 

Share this post


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

No comments about the other cases listed in the filing, Joe?

Which filing? 

 

1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

No comments about the state cases regarding carry?

I'm down. They can be challenged, since they have no foundation. 

 

1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

No comments about colonial era laws mandating that one go armed?

Let's see them.

1 hour ago, bpm57 said:

But lets talk about posers, Joe. You can't even manage to read a motion to dismiss without lying about who filed it.

I figure that Tom Palmer was party to filing Palmer vs. DC.  He was Libertarian Party, all the way.

Share this post


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

Which filing?

Maybe your recall would be better if you were actually sober.

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Let's see them.

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 3

22 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I figure that Tom Palmer was party to filing Palmer vs. DC.

I see. I'd recommend a class on civics, or maybe running what you "figure" past one of your acceptable lawyers.

Maybe read the whole motion to dismiss, Joe. Maybe ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why would Palmer be allowed to write a motion in the name of DC, and then sign in in the name of DC's lawyers?" and "Why would he have to confirm that he sent a copy to his own lawyer? Wouldn't his lawyer be the one who wrote it?"

Share this post


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

Maybe your recall would be better if you were actually sober.

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 3

I see. I'd recommend a class on civics, or maybe running what you "figure" past one of your acceptable lawyers.

Maybe read the whole motion to dismiss, Joe. Maybe ask yourself some obvious questions, like "Why would Palmer be allowed to write a motion in the name of DC, and then sign in in the name of DC's lawyers?" and "Why would he have to confirm that he sent a copy to his own lawyer? Wouldn't his lawyer be the one who wrote it?"

You've been stuck on Palmer vs. D.C. for a few months, lost in self misery. Palmer sued D.C. His name came first in th4 suit. 

Quote
  • Complaint and Civil Case Cover Sheet
  • TOM G. PALMER, ) Case No. 1935 17th St., N.W. #2 ) Washington, DC 20009 ) COMPLAINT )
  • GEORGE LYON, ) 1929 Biltmore St., N.W. Washington, DC 20009 Case: 1 :09-cv-01 482 Assigned To: Kennedy, Henry H.
  • EDWARD RAYMOND, Assign. Date: 8/6/2009 120 Fisherville Road #128 Description: General Civil Concord, NH 03303 ) AMY McVEY ) 4600 Albemarle Street, N.W. ) Washington, DC 20016 ) ) and ) )
  • SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. ) 12500 N.E. 10th Place ) Bellevue, WA 98005

 

Share this post


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

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 3

No link, because this is John Ashcroft and deConcini in 1982, and they are  using David Hardy as a historian here. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

The work is seminal--the first general presentation of individmal rights on government letterhead. 

They are lying and stretching shit. This is a joke.

Quote

As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit.

WTF? Each district had formal militias, and each state required them. Oh come on!

They are ignoring the National Guard wrt militia function? Really?

Quote

. That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today

This is their ending, they are "winnning," and they are making shit up.

Quote

 The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

 

Share this post


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

Maybe your recall would be better if you were actually sober.

I had two beers this month, and finished neither.

Share this post


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

I had two beers this month, and finished neither.

There's your problem....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 7:31 PM, Fakenews said:

I have a comment.

This thread is ancient and extremely boring.

I have a comment.

5 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I’ve responded to your MJ posts where we seem to agree.  Your other posts this early am were on boring threads.


You post in boring threads when they involve guns, but not when they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don’t find gun threads boring. I am very pro gun and ammo control an take an interest in opposing view points and how to defeat them.

i do find most gun nutters posts on the subject....

SAD!

OK.  The decade long thread is pretty boring...

Share this post


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

They are lying and stretching shit. This is a joke.

So when they wrote this, you are saying they are lying?

20 hours ago, bpm57 said:

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

Feel free to actually comment on this, rather then some other part of the document that makes you cry.

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You've been stuck on Palmer vs. D.C. for a few months, lost in self misery.

There is a disingenuous POS who keeps lying about the case. It is almost like this person is unaware of how courts work - and is proud of it. This same person called Palmer a "big (antigun) win", but has been dodging answering questions about it since. 

Then again, this same person had to be given a law dictionary link to "vacated" before he knew what the word meant.

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Palmer sued D.C. His name came first in th4 suit. 

I guess this means he is responsible for all the filings in the case. Of course, you also don't believe that DC appealed the case.. Should I file your "figuring" under "Stupid shit Jocal says"?

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

No link

Aww, you poor dear. I cited it, which is better then any of your "ninth circuit reply brief" nonsense.

Here you go, maybe you can get your underwear untwisted now:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005397099;view=1up;seq=1

 

Share this post


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

I had two beers this month, and finished neither.

So it is long term effects from your parkour TBIs?

Share this post


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

Okay, let's play the Tom Ray way.

Who are the historians you are basing your gun rights upon, Mr. Ray?

Where are your sources saying Miller has fuck all to do with gun rights for The People?

You are a sketchy guy if you can't back up your stuff.


1. Anyone but Bellesiles.

2. I never said that. I said Miller was a Person, much like Otis McDonald and Dick Heller and Dred Scott.

You're a sketchy guy for never documenting the militia enrollment of any of them.

Share this post


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

(Joe: Where are your sources saying Miller has fuck all to do with gun rights for The People?)

2. I never said that. I said Miller was a Person, much like Otis McDonald and Dick Heller and Dred Scott.

 

Quote

Scot's search function. Miller > Uncooperative Tom >

Result:  5 PAGES OF TOM RAY CONTENT MAKING ERRONEOUS MILLER CLAIMS

  • (Tom Ray:) Oct. 23 2016. JBSF and I are part of the people just like Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. If your last question were relevant to whether the second amendment applies to us, the Supreme Court never would have heard Miller's case. But they did. And then Lawrence Tribe admitted why. But keep clinging to that lie.
  • (Tom Ray:) Nov. 5 2016. I only claim he (Miller) was part of "the people" from which the militia is drawn and the Supreme Court seems to have thought that was enough to make the second amendment cover him, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald. 
  • (Tom Ray) Nov. 7, 2016. How could there be a Miller case if the 2A did not apply to Miller? You know he was not enrolled, right? Just part of "the people" whose rights are protected by the amendment.

When you are not mastur baiting you key into Miller's central idea just fine.

Quote

Quote

Tom Ray said, Nov. 4, 2016:

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 Miller discussions (and other discussions) are a waste with you, because you are simply so damn dishonest.

Share this post


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

1. Anyone but Bellesiles.

The premise of the work was that the founding fathers and others barely regarded guns in their daily lives.You brought me this one, and my first look at Joyce Malcolm. She looked formidable to me in 2012. Unassailable...but I so wanted a piece of her...

Clayton Cramer ("Why Footnotes Matter"took public credit for the debunking and trashing of Bellesiles. Then Malcolm piled on...and I read every word.

  • First, Tom, I have always thought that Bellesiles was basically correct (but wrote five bogus claims about regionl research).
  • Secodly,  Cramer and Malcolm are now on the outs with the body of vetted historians. Their history is unsupported garbage, it's worthless. 
  • Thirdly, John R. Lott has cooked ten times the research than Belesailes did.  Lott was caught fabricating imaginary research three times.

 

Sometimes I consider reading Bellesiles and coming after you with the info. He keyed into facts. As for Cramer, he skews his footnotes, selectively, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 4:27 PM, jocal505 said:

CATO could not rock and roll, oh no, not merely as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." CATO needed The People to have guns. They recruited Ms Parker, Tom Ray, and DeadEye Dick to get the job done. The results are TBD.

 

On 10/20/2018 at 8:03 AM, jocal505 said:

Let's play BOOKMOBILE RODEO WITH TOM RAY. I'll read the Ann Rand of your choice. You read MLK's autobiography. We each post a book report.

 

On 10/20/2018 at 4:22 PM, jocal505 said:
On 5/15/2018 at 3:30 AM, 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...

 

On 10/21/2018 at 1:53 AM, jocal505 said:
On 10/20/2018 at 5:14 AM, jocal505 said:

(to Tom) A guy in your position needs to support the Standard Model, and you don't dare do that in my modest company. LMFAO

It was fun driving you under the dogballs rock. (You need to escape from my reading habits now.)  The Standard Model is some seriously phony shit, and I have documented that. I enjoyed every minute of it, and this is not over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 12:06 PM, bpm57 said:
On 10/26/2018 at 3:05 PM, bpm57 said:

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

Feel free to actually comment on this, rather then some other part of the document that makes you cry.

bpm, I have little issue with this. You are showing us a glimpse of one place, in one time.

Quote

in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.”

The militia practice was after church, in that case, and so was target practice. Nothing earth-shattering here. 

Quote

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”;

If guns were required in 1623, there was a uniquely dangerous setting, can you provide it? What was this context, just follow your guideposts, as they appeared in the press and in the pamphlets of that area.

It could have been problems with natives, or problems with road agents, or with space aliens. But that doesn't dictate arms in all places, at all times, it doesn't set up Paul Revere to be thin skinned, to not take offense at the marketplace.

 

The conditions of gun supply varied for the militia, depending on the local tax ba$es and whether they had local uncooperatives dragging their feet. Quality guns were bountiful in some companies at certain times, but neither public or private wepons materialized at other places, at certain times. Some men drilled with boards put to their shoulders, but the better men trained .

Quote

1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

This sounds like a jackass militia, with logistics and financing by John Doe. Did it evolve there? If not, n o wonder it failed Thomas Jefferson right after the Second Amendment, like it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the wheels of the jocal jalopy are definitely coming off.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.

Readers of court opinions come across stuff like that, so we know about it.

Joe doesn't read and doesn't know it was a common practice, so he says stuff like this:

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:
Quote

1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

This sounds like a jackass militia, with logistics and financing by John Doe. Did it evolve there?

 

Share this post


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

Joe doesn't read

Right. You have been well-challenged by what I read. What I present, in weaponized cut and pastes, has driven you under a rock, and the rock is called the dogballs.

Quote
 On 10/20/2018 at 8:03 AM, jocal505 said:

Let's play BOOKMOBILE RODEO WITH TOM RAY. I'll read the Ann Rand of your choice. You read MLK's autobiography. We each post a book report.

 

Share this post


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

Yep, the wheels of the jocal jalopy are definitely coming off.....

Why have you proclaimed this all over the place? Have a nice drink instead. Go toast a cocktail, to the repeal of Kolbe.

Share this post


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

Why have you proclaimed this all over the place? Have a nice drink instead. Go toast a cocktail, to the repeal of Kolbe.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, joe. But I’m not the only one saying it all over this place. 

Share this post


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

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, joe. But I’m not the only one saying it all over this place. 

It caught my eye. The cheap seaters are all in a dither. You worked them into a frenzy. What I notice is that this group feels threatened by me. They were waiting to pile on.

Boothy made predictions all through 2014, my self-immolation was assured, by Thanksgiving. He was the one who evaporated, a year later.

rousey, on suicide.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 3:40 PM, bpm57 said:

Blah, blah blah. Someone turns evidence and gets off scot free.

No. Read it again. Your Sir John Knight was the Sheriff, the Justice of the Peece.

He was loyall to the Duke, so he had a right to the gun. He was chasing a firebrand priest or something, for the Duke. Some gun-terrified grabber came after Knight in court...and the Libertarians see it as a legal breakthrough.

Lame. Your underinformed ass fell into a booby trap, and it was laid by Joyce Malcolm and Larry Pratt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 2:13 PM, bpm57 said:

We all know he (historian Patrick J Charles, USAF) is your perfect man, Joe.

On your end of things, Paladin would be pretty close to my perfect man.  

This is Tom Ray with a six gun...and a heart. @.22 Tom

have gun will travel, paladin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 6:27 AM, jocal505 said:

You have been well-challenged by what I read.

Yes, tell us again about your "big win" in the Palmer case. Explain what DC "won" in it.

Tell us again who appealed it, and who made the motion to dismiss. Do so with actual quotes from the filings, they have all been linked in here multiple times.

Tell us all about your confused history of Shay's and the Whisky rebellions.

 

 

Share this post


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

Yes, tell us again about your "big win" in the Palmer case. Explain what DC "won" in it.

Tell us again who appealed it, and who made the motion to dismiss. Do so with actual quotes from the filings, they have all been linked in here multiple times.

Tell us all about your confused history of Shay's and the Whisky rebellions.

 

I corrected the first flub cheerfully and unequivocally. Then I congratulated you. If you are a grand person, we will hear of it no more.  (a bigly convoluted ending, in the distric of international diplomats, what could gorong with that?) )

But I owe you a correction of Shays--as you pointed out, it was a Massachussets matter, not PA. (I took my tme checking on it)

The PA matter was the Whisky rebellion, where my generalizations have merit, and need no correction I am aware of.

You and I are good now.

 

Don't worry, be happy, DeadEye. You can be nice as we discuss this further. Why do you hate me> my doggie thinks I'm wonderful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 1:25 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Readers of court opinions come across stuff like that, so we know about it.

Joe doesn't read and doesn't know it was a common practice, so he says stuff like this:

This sounds like a jackass militia, with logistics and financing by John Doe. Did it evolve there?

 

On 11/16/2018 at 1:25 AM, dogballs Tom said:
Quote

1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

This sounds like a jackass militia, with logistics and financing by John Doe. Did it evolve there

How about some direct, intelligent discussion. I am impressed how you have everyone thinking of a single Federalist writing, such is incessant propagana.

 

 

The militia use of the term "well regulated" was an emphasis of England's 1757 Militia Act. The term was viagra for their hapless militias, AND THE HESSIANS WERE COMING TO ENGLAND.

Three years before this, at age 21. Vol. Lt.Col. George Washington was representing geopolitical interests in the Ohio Valley , for Gov. Dinwiddie, by delivering termination notice to the French commander, to promote his family's presence on purloined U.S. land grants. Washington drew international reaction, then surrendered his VIrginia Company and pled guilty to assasination, after his first attack.

 

Ragtag militias were in global disfavor, in an active struggle, Tom. Our militias employed for the Brits in the French and Indian War, which takes us to 1863.. The militias were dissed so badly GW stood on a staff job title with the English, rather than his volunteer rank. The rep and function of the miltia was so sketchy that Washington badly wanted an English commission. If it was haphazaard, make-do, and underfunded, only good training would offer the anecdote.

And Jefferson himself had lived in Europe, and certainly felt rumblings from Napoleon. I don't think they were proposing an armed rabble type militia by 1794. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone translate the post above ^^ into intelligible engrish?  I'm traveling and my jocal-ese translator is on the fritz.

Share this post


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

Can anyone translate the post above ^^ into intelligible engrish?  I'm traveling and my jocal-ese translator is on the fritz.

Okay, but there may be something to learn.

  • 1. The historical timeframe of "well regulated" valued, and needed, and knew, capable militias.
  • 2. Run what you brung (the Virginia militia's sucessful, but  half-assed attack on the French foreign power), had already failed Washington. They walked home with no gunz.
  • 3. Planning an armed rabble does not fit into these historical guideposts. 

Share this post


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

Scalia had to ignore "well regulated," and he did. Heller had many pages, but not enough room to approach well regulated.

Where is the virtu? An armed rabble for a fighting force was not what the SC had in mind.

These are fighting age males. They form the militia genepool, as intended, for purposes of collective self-defense. They need to be ready to serve, and need to be well regulated as they serve.

Let's take the poorly regulated ones, the slackers who are not accepted, and can't or won't serve. They are home with their guns, and with their militia rights, without virtu.  They are not in the militia. I don't see an individual right, for personal confrontations, just a right to back up and set up the community militia.

The second amendment gave each slacker a right to a gun, yes, but as a militia candidate. If he ain't that guy, and does not conform to being well regulated, I don't see where his right rests.

 

Let's conclude. You have try hard to confuse "The People" with "the  militia" to get this to work, then you have to reject "well regulated" to get this to work. It is a grotesque exercise, and Scalia did a shabby job of it.


You mean you finally read it? Wow! Congratulations.

Quote the parts you found shabby so we can discuss your new knowledge!

Share this post


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

You mean you finally read it? Wow! Congratulations.

You got screwed by my hobby reading.

You are quite like King George, I find. And this ^^^ is haughty, and empty, reading censorship.

 

Address the intelligent point I made. Seriously, this is the heart of the intellectual struggle, the chasm between the contrasting thoughts of Saul Cornell and Sanford Levinson.

In the genepool from which the militia would be summoned, their right to guns was not to be infringed upon...as a community protection for the state. Well regulated was a written part of the Second Amendment deal. 

But now, ~2018, under the influence of the detestable Larry Pratt, we are conflating The People with The Militia, in a half-assed way, I might add. Their very function is different. Their basis in law is different. One needs training, and one doesn't. 

 

  • If I see this correctly, you and Levinson think that untrained, armed slackers are supposed to defend liberty, from their couches. And they need guns, as a priority, and find that right in the Second.
  • If I see this correctly, the founding fathers wanted to choose suitable soldiers, and they needed gun possession, as a by-product of the geopolitical military force they had to have.

Share this post


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

Quote the parts you found shabby so we can discuss your new knowledge!

The stuff has been well covered, by myself. Read SAILING ANARCHY.

  • Stuff like "bear arms" meant military function 97% of the time. (Source: Kozuskanich)
  • Scalia quotes Loius Schwoerer at least 3X, yet she is definitve in debunking the Standard Model
  • Scalia violates Justice Blackstone's actual positions
  • Scalia very ignorantly denies the colonial relevance of the Statute of Northampton
  • Joyce Lee Malcolm was rejected by the vetted community of historic scholars, WITHIN MCDONALD
  • Scalia spoke of the importance of prefatory clauses in other writing
  • Interpersonal "confrontations" were not a concern of the founding fathers
  • Fucking "hearth and home," mate? That idea and term is not in the Second.
  • "Originalism" is a conservative's way of saying whatever a conservative wants to say, based on history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2018 at 2:18 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Can anyone translate the post above ^^ into intelligible engrish?  I'm traveling and my jocal-ese translator is on the fritz.

Pretty interesting stuff. Valley Forge, in context, was part of a family fortune.

You don't like it, in my wording, and you don't like it, in cut and pastes. No matter. It is y pleasure to deliver the context.

You boys need to grasp the idea that George Washington paid a freezing-ass price for the company of ragged and marginal soldiery. He also had a family dog in the hunt, and a personal dog in the hunt. GW may have been fighting more for money, than for gunz.

In the leadup to the Revolution, through the entire French and Indian War, our young George was up to his neck in fighting the French, for personal reason$. 

Quote

George Washington was a raw and ambitious 21-year old when he was first sent to the Ohio Valley to confront the growing French presence in the region. His actions sparked the French & Indian War.

--Virginia's governor sent 21-year old Maj. George Washington to deliver an ultimatum to the French

Control of the expansive Ohio Valley region, especially near the joining of the Monongahela and Allegheny rivers (modern day Pittsburgh), was of great interest to both the British and their French rivals. Rivers like the Ohio, which connected to the Mississippi, were essential transit corridors for goods produced in this fertile region.

Concerned by reports of French expansion into the Ohio Valley, Virginia Lt. Governor Robert Dinwiddie sent 21-year-old Major George Washington of the Virginia Regiment on a mission to confront the French forces. Washington was to deliver a message from the governor demanding that the French leave the region and halt their harassment of English traders. Washington departed Williamsburg, Virginia in October 1753 and made his way into the rugged trans- Appalachian region with Jacob Van Braam, a family friend and French speaker, and Christopher Gist, an Ohio company trader and guide. On December 11, 1753, amidst a raging snowstorm, Washington arrived and was politely received by Captain Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre at Fort LeBoeuf. After reviewing Dinwiddie's letter, Legardeur de Saint-Pierre calmly wrote a reply stating that the French king's claim to the Ohio Valley was "incontestable."

Washington's return to Virginia during the winter of 1753 was a perilous one, but the group safely returned to Williamsburg after traveling almost 900 miles in two and a half winter months.

Washington's account of his actions in the Ohio Valley made him a celebrity in North America and Britain

--Washington's family along with many of his political allies had strong economic interests in the Ohio Valley

Royal Governor Robert Dinwiddie, George William Fairfax, George Mason, and George's half-brothers Lawrence and Augustine Washington were all shareholders in the Ohio Company. Founded in 1749, the Ohio Company was created to help encourage settlement and development of the vast Ohio Valley. Granted 200,000 acres (with the potential for an additional 300,000 acres) between the Kanawha and Monongahela Rivers, the Ohio Company shareholders were economically threatened by the French incursion into these granted lands. In addition to the larger geopolitical issues at stake, the principal shareholders of the Ohio Company, George Washington included, were also personally motivated to push the French out of the region.

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/french-indian-war/ten-facts-about-george-washington-and-the-french-indian-war/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2008 at 12:35 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:
SC-Texas said:
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.

Ten years later, I'm still there.

More on Heller: From Theory To Doctrine:

 

Quote

 

Share this post


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

Ten years later, I'm still there.

More on Heller: From Theory To Doctrine:

(...snipped: content which Tom won't read, but which jocal will :mellow:)

 

 You have taken a real beating Tom. Add you are just shade and shadow.

Quote

Item: Tom predicts ten years to settle second amendment

Post 58 Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban thread

'Tom Ray', on 08 Jul 2010 - 04:13 AM, said:

The truth is, we don't know what the second amendment will mean, but we'll learn over the next ten years or so. 

Quote

Ten years later, I'm still there.

When you are here, you are posting purple tophats. You are a poser: you can't identify or discuss your historical scholarship.

Quote

Sol, July of 2016, Post 196 Charleston Race Thread Reconstruction

Some folks just do not want to stand up for everyone's Second Amendment rights by condemning Dylann's actions.

Please note that unlike yourself,  @Sol Rosenberg has grown and developed in ten years. And he has (eloquently) noted the toll of the tradgedy in play, the ongoing results of the SAF bullshit.

Your post offers real meat (Darrel MIller and Levinson), so why did you end it with a bulshitter CATOist, a flat-earther like David Kopel? To be continued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can answer my own question, an hour later. Tom's links are gold, but the slant shows this is from reason.com. In summary,

  • Blocher has written scholarly stuff with Darrel Miller (just not above).
  • Read SAILING ANARCHY. Darrel Miller demonstrates to the high court in McD that armed self defense has never, never been legitimate.
  • The first article demonstrates that the courts support gun restrictions after Heller, overwhelmingly.

Then the CATO writers step in.

  • Moscary credits the work of Blocher et al, but subtly declares it a red flag
  • Kopel mops up, for CATO, with hyperbole about Heller. The bolded below is an insinuation of outdoor gun rights, without foundation... in full conflict with Darrel Miller.
    Quote

    III. Underenforcement of the right to bear arms

    “Challenges to public carry restrictions had a success rate of 22 percent, which is the highest in our dataset,” Ruben and Blocher report. [75] Underenforcement of the right to bear arms is not nationally pervasive. Final successes on the merits for the right to bear arms have come in major cases in Illinois (Seventh Circuit and Illinois Supreme Court) and in the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit). [76]These cases overturned prohibitions or quasi-prohibitions on bearing arms in public and affirmed the legality of fairly-applied licensing systems. [77] The results accord with Heller, which recognized a right to bear arms, while allowing for carry bans “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” [78]

     

Share this post


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

Ten years later, I'm still there.

More on Heller: From Theory To Doctrine:

 

 

Ten years on and this thread is still boring. Adding Jocelyn to the mix hasn’t helped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Post 662. GW set off the French and Indian war? Better than dogballs, but suit yourself.

Happy New Year,  bull gaytor was a contender.

Share this post


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

See Post 662. GW set off the French and Indian war?

Maybe you should start a new thread about it, Joe. Will you blame CATO and IJ for things that happened prior to the French and Indian Wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
On 8/19/2018 at 4:42 AM, dogballs Tom said:

You have to look really hard to find an appealing plaintiff. Like, you know, Ms. Parker or Mr. Heller.

Heller is a loose cannon, like Tom. A real wild card.

Levy and Gura had problems handling DIck Heller, had to exclude him from some procedures. In a formal interview with a reporter, Heller accosted passers by and suggested they were going to work on a plantation.


Your thoughts on cellphones and the fourth amendment revolve around a personal attack on Dick Heller with the usual lack of a source?

What were "passers by" doing at this formal interview?

And just because I love questions that won't be answered but to which the answer is obvious, what does that have to do with cellphones and the fourth amendment?

Share this post


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

Your thoughts on cellphones and the fourth amendment revolve around a personal attack on Dick Heller with the usual lack of a source?

What were "passers by" doing at this formal interview?

And just because I love questions that won't be answered but to which the answer is obvious, what does that have to do with cellphones and the fourth amendment?

You mentioned Heller as a model (or appealing") plaintiff type. But he accosts strangers with racial innuendo. What's up with these Tom Ray types, these two libertarians?

Quote

What were "passers by" doing at this formal interview?

The passers by were passing by, and this Libertarian, Dick Heller, behaved poorly. He pulled the racial issue out of the thin air, during a conversation with a reporter, for some reason.

Quote

 with the usual lack of a source?

I've sourced it before. This interview is dynamite.

Quote

,from the OP of a Jeffie thread  A Race-based) History of the Second Amendment

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/19-radiolab-presents-more-perf-27550528/episode/the-gun-show-28551872/

Quote

The key voices:

Adam Winkler, professor at UCLA School of Law, author of Gunfight
Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University
Stephen Halbrook, attorney specializing in Second Amendment litigation
Bobby Seale, co-founder of theBlack PantherParty
John Aquilino, former spokesman of the National Rifle Association
Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation
Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas Law School 
Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, represented Dick Heller in District of Columbia v. Heller
Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, helped finance Dick Heller’s case in District of Columbia v. Heller
Alan Gura, appellate constitutional attorney, argued District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of Dick Heller
Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller
Joan Biskupic, author of American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia 
Jack Rakove, professor of history and political science at Stanford University 

 

Share this post


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

The passers by were passing by

We all know that you have a unique take on the meaning of words in English Joe, but the point he was making is that you don't have "passers by" in a "formal interview"

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You mentioned Heller as a model (or appealing") plaintiff type. But he accosts strangers with racial innuendo. What's up with these Tom Ray types, these two libertarians?

Are you saying that SCOTUS is supposed to focus not on the question presented, but on whether the plaintiff/defendant are nice people? 

Or are you claiming that libertarians are "racist"?

Or is it that Tom is somehow racist, all because you have an inability to explain away your racist posts?

Share this post


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

You mentioned Heller as a model (or appealing") plaintiff type.

Well, yes. Readers of cases know why, so I guess I should let you in on it.

Parker was an excellent plaintiff but had no job that required a gun. Heller had a job that required a gun, which is the reason he was the only one of the group of plaintiffs to have standing for the suit. All of which happened long before some incident that troubled you.

And just because I love questions that won't be answered but to which the answer is obvious, what does that have to do with cellphones and the fourth amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this