Jump to content

2nd Amendment: In the home only?


Recommended Posts

On 1/14/2013 at 7:39 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The Brady Center is urging an en banc review and reversal of the Moore v Madigan result by the full circuit court.

 

Quote
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the parents of shooting victims Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, and several national law enforcement groups, today filed an amicus brief asking the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review and reverse a 2-1 decision that held Illinois law restricting the public carrying of firearms unconstitutional.

 

They have a different definition of "in public" from mine. The statute in question prohibited carrying handguns outside the home...

 

Quote
Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards.

 

Posted from one of my four outbuildings, all of which seem like private places to me, not public ones.

We may at last have agreement on the question of whether a front porch is a public space.
 

Quote

 

...

Tanya Kerssen was standing on her front porch filming the procession of armored vehicles and riot gear–clad troops rolling through Whittier, a neighborhood a few blocks north of where protests over the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, had recently turned into riots. The National Guard had been called in to help restore order and enforce an 8 p.m. curfew set by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Kerssen was complying with that order—the curfew applies only to public spaces, not private ones like residences, porches, or front yards—but she became a target anyway.

"Light 'em up!" someone can be heard shouting in the video. Then bean bag rounds and paint canisters are fired at Kerssen and others, who quickly flee inside.

The video is shocking, but it was hardly the only scene of apparently unnecessary policy brutality to be captured by smartphones and TV news cameras on Saturday, as peaceful protests in many cities across the country turned violent once again. Rather than helping to lower the tensions and restore peace, however, aggressive police tactics are likely going to worsen the situation—after all, the protests began because Minneapolis cops used unnecessarily brutal tactics to subdue and ultimately kill Floyd.

...

 

I continue to believe, as I did in 2013, that a front porch is not a public space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kinda like mask and vaccine "freedom".   "Fuck your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I have the right to do whatever I want."

In the strictest sense of the original wording and intention, the 2nd Amendment is fine. In the re-interpreted SCOTUS-capitalist version, it's the gun manufacturer's wet dream, which is just what

You would understand the disgust if you had kids.

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

We may at last have agreement on the question of whether a front porch is a public space.
 

I continue to believe, as I did in 2013, that a front porch is not a public space.

So who do we blame for that should it be the state police or the state government who are supposed to control their police?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

So who do we blame for that should it be the state police or the state government who are supposed to control their police?

 

Is this a trick question? The bean bag and paintball guns are obviously responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 7/23/2020 at 11:39 PM, Burning Man said:
On 7/23/2020 at 11:21 PM, Gouvernail said:

7D72C5D2-29F6-4E0B-B771-12AAB0BB999B.jpeg

Govey, we've been over this before.  The militia is a tool of last resort when all tools of restraining the tyrannical gov't have been exhausted.  Many of these transgressions are working their way through the courts as we speak.  As long as Congress and the courts are intact and not be subsumed by an authoritarian dictator - then we need to let this play out before the citizen guns come out.  

However, I will say we are likely closer to that point than at anytime in our history since the war of northern aggression.  So that's scary in and of itself.  But we're not there yet.  There's still some drama to play out.  Wait for it.....

How do we know NRA members are not among the People rising up? After all, they'd be doing it indoors according to the TeamD/Brady interpretation of the second amendment, so only by intruding into homes where the second amendment applies could anyone know. Gouv, have you been checking inside people's homes to verify your meme?

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


Have you been checking inside homes where the second amendment applies like Gouv, or how do you know this?

The Second amendment has zero to do with homes. 
it simply says we can keep and hear arms and the government shall not infringe upon our right to do do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/louisville-armed-activists-1.5663599

"Earlier in the day, three people were accidentally shot at a park where Black activists had gathered, police said. The victims, all of whom were members of the militia group, were taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, police said."

 

Now that's responsible firearm ownership......  lol

image.thumb.png.968f92731651dcc2809bead8c7015241.png

image.thumb.png.e42aa002e1b4dbdc8f864957412a886b.png

Look exceptionally dangerous to me, especially the guy in the top pic with his finger on the trigger.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gouvernail said:
8 hours ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:


Have you been checking inside homes where the second amendment applies like Gouv, or how do you know this?

The Second amendment has zero to do with homes. 
it simply says we can keep and hear arms and the government shall not infringe upon our right to do do. 

Heresy! I love it! But you're saying what the NRA and SAF have been saying in lots of court cases. I didn't figure you for an NRA supporter?

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

Heresy! I love it! But you're saying what the NRA and SAF have been saying in lots of court cases. I didn't figure you for an NRA supporter?

NRA is an association whose purpose is to fund the lifestyles of its officers and lobbyists. 
I don’t support them or their kind.

the 2nd Amendment clearly states the government may not “infringe.”

My understanding of the English language and my application of my understanding to interpreting the Second Amendment is the Government can’t get involved in any way shape or form with nothing citizens about ownership, carrying, or even moving arms.

Perhaps  a case could be made “guns, tanks, grenades, knives, bows, and such are no longer sufficiently effective to be called arms.”

However jets, cruise missiles, computers, cell phones, Submarines, nukes,  and biological weapons are obviously effective arms we can keep and bear without infringement by the government.

i am not pleased about that situation but until such time as the US Constitution is amended, the government shall not infringe on arms keeping or bearing. 

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

NRA is an association whose purpose is to fund the lifestyles of its officers and lobbyists. 
I don’t support them or their kind.

the 2nd Amendment clearly states the government may not “infringe.”

My understanding of the English language and my application of my understanding to interpreting the Second Amendment is the Government can’t get involved in any way shape or form with nothing citizens about ownership, carrying, or even moving arms.

Perhaps  a case could be made “guns, tanks, grenades, knives, bows, and such are no longer sufficiently effective to be called arms.”

However jets, cruise missiles, computers, cell phones, Submarines, nukes,  and biological weapons are obviously effective arms we can keep and bear without infringement by the government.

i am not pleased about that situation but until such time as the US Constitution is amended, the government shall not infringe on arms keeping or bearing. 

Embarrassing. You have been left in the dust, Gouv. 

Wake up. Infringements upon weapons are established. At this point, you need to accept such legislation into your well-educated brain.

At this point, you need to accept, well, reality: the pattern of the established case law of scores of cases.

Let's get real... and let's just make the legislation better. 

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

Embarrassing. You have been left in the dust, Gouv. 

Wake up. Infringements upon weapons are established. At this point, you need to accept such legislation into your well-educated brain.

At this point, you need to accept, well, reality: the pattern of the established case law of scores of cases.

Let's get real... and let's just make the legislation better. 

The Fact the Court has misinterpreted the clearly written language does not make it correct. 
At some point, someone has to present a case which necessitates a clear interpretation of every single word and every bit of punctuation of #2 

Until the Supreme  Court either defines EVERYTHING or decides #2 is meaningless drivel, the endless arguments will continue. 
 

If I am ever challenged about my right to keep my arsenal of cruise missiles, fully equipped aircraft carriers, cannons, disrupters, phasers, and light sabres the ensuing court case may finally cause the SCOTUS to define exactly what infringe means. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 12:44 PM, Keith said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/louisville-armed-activists-1.5663599

"Earlier in the day, three people were accidentally shot at a park where Black activists had gathered, police said. The victims, all of whom were members of the militia group, were taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, police said."

 

Now that's responsible firearm ownership......  lol

image.thumb.png.968f92731651dcc2809bead8c7015241.png

Look exceptionally dangerous to me, especially the guy in the top pic with his finger on the trigger.

The plot thickens. The org, the NFAC, sustained a few self-inflicted gun injuries in St. Louis, The group has also made appearances in Georgia and Phoenix. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 2:44 PM, Keith said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/louisville-armed-activists-1.5663599

"Earlier in the day, three people were accidentally shot at a park where Black activists had gathered, police said. The victims, all of whom were members of the militia group, were taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, police said."

 

Now that's responsible firearm ownership......  lol

image.thumb.png.968f92731651dcc2809bead8c7015241.png

image.thumb.png.e42aa002e1b4dbdc8f864957412a886b.png

Look exceptionally dangerous to me, especially the guy in the top pic with his finger on the trigger.

 

 

That’s a woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 4:51 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I continue to believe, as I did in 2013, that a front porch is not a public space.

You are the dogballs , and you desire "self defense" (which you confuse with armed confrontation), on the front porch. Common law has encountered your type before, so...

Traditionally, castile doctrine related to the central living spaces of one's dwelling. In the winter, most lodgings would be built around a "great room" situation, with one, single fireplace used for cooking. Armed self defense was legally defensible within the living spaces of the primary dwelling. Your whole crew could fight with arms within your living space.

 

Sorry, dogballs.

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

You are the dogballs , and you desire "self defense" (which you confuse with armed confrontation), on the front porch. Common law has encountered your type before, so...

Traditionally, castile doctrine related to the central living spaces of one's dwelling. In the winter, most lodgings would be built around a "great room" situation, with one, single fireplace used for cooking. Armed self defense was legally defensible within the living spaces of the primary dwelling. Your whole crew could fight with arms within your living space.

 

Sorry, dogballs.

So...

On 6/1/2020 at 7:51 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

...

Tanya Kerssen was standing on her front porch filming the procession of armored vehicles and riot gear–clad troops rolling through Whittier, a neighborhood a few blocks north of where protests over the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, had recently turned into riots. The National Guard had been called in to help restore order and enforce an 8 p.m. curfew set by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Kerssen was complying with that order—the curfew applies only to public spaces, not private ones like residences, porches, or front yards—but she became a target anyway.

"Light 'em up!" someone can be heard shouting in the video. Then bean bag rounds and paint canisters are fired at Kerssen and others, who quickly flee inside.

Your post suggests that you agree with the Gov and the National Guard decision to attack Tanya Kerssen for violating a curfew in a public place. Is that what you're saying?

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

If I am ever challenged about my right to keep my arsenal of cruise missiles, fully equipped aircraft carriers, cannons, disrupters, phasers, and light sabres the ensuing court case may finally cause the SCOTUS to define exactly what infringe means. 

You've got all that stuff in your house, where the second amendment applies? So I'm guessing you're also a heretic on the question of whether the second amendment applies to technology developed since the 18th century?

 

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

So...

Your post suggests that you agree with the Gov and the National Guard decision to attack Tanya Kerssen for violating a curfew in a public place. Is that what you're saying?

No. That is just the nonsense you came up with today, from the bottom of the barrel, where the bottom feeders hang out.

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

So...

Your post suggests that you agree with the Gov and the National Guard decision to attack Tanya Kerssen for violating a curfew in a public place. Is that what you're saying?

No. That is just the nonsense you came up with today, from the bottom of the barrel, where the bottom feeders hang out.

When you two finally do get your room, please make sure to wear masks and social distance.  Maybe spooning would be effective.  And make sure to wash your hands afterwards.

Just saying.

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

When you two finally do get your room, please make sure to wear masks and social distance.  Maybe spooning would be effective.  And make sure to wash your hands afterwards.

Just saying.

Hmmm, I must live in your filthy mind, rent free, because you have retained me in your sig line. Feel free to detach yourself, to depart from our interactions, at any time. 

 

 

The cities protest, flames are an issue,...and not long ago you and your bro Boothy wanted gangsta mayhem to solve the racial gap. Not just once, it was a (tandem) undertone of many posts.

 So Jeffie, I'd like to present a systematic white-boy, one who is reaching out, making the effort you feign to make. Here is some of the work of a "crossover" effort of a Jewish attorney and journalist, from Seattlle.. In this one, Ari Melber gives us a relaxed Ice Cube. Enjoy.

As a bonus in this segment, an informed white boy historian nails the open, connected, thoughtful approach that could be yours.

http://www.msnbc.com/search/ice cube

 

 

And yo, this thread needs a Jeffie pic, of someone you and I should have heeded.. Just sayin'.

 

 

50cent.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 7/28/2020 at 5:31 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

So...

Your post suggests that you agree with the Gov and the National Guard decision to attack Tanya Kerssen for violating a curfew in a public place. Is that what you're saying?

No.

You object when I say a porch is not a public place then you object when I say it is a public place.

Simple question: was her porch a public place or not?

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

You object when I say a porch is not a public place then you object when I say it is a public place.

Simple question: was her porch a public place or not?

Simple question. Do you have a grasp of the current issues faced by the NAACP?

Because today, right now, if we Search > Dogballs > NAACP, we find 158 references. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 7/29/2020 at 2:42 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

You object when I say a porch is not a public place then you object when I say it is a public place.

Simple question: was her porch a public place or not?

I'm not sure I've made comments either way, but a porch is not a living  space when it relates to gun law.

We find TR mission creep, again, in your myopic, Jeffie-like, "simple" question. In traditional "castile doctrine," the spirit of the law related to living spaces, and in most climates, this meant areas made tolerable by a fireplace.

So answer your own question and cut to the quick.  Is the porch a living space?

 

 

37 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Well, OK, the idea that we had indoor militias is still stupid enough to be funny.

Stupid enough to be pathetic. Here, we view the level of the dogballs.

Hamilton had an outdoor militia in Boston. But he needed permission for them to shoot and train outdoors on the Boston Common...and the permission applied during muster only.

Voila! See how that worked?

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

Well, OK, the idea that we had indoor militias is still stupid enough to be funny.

The idea that a large portion of your American population is still packing firearms in 2020, is stupid enough to be funny.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

So answer your own question and cut to the quick.  Is the porch a living space?

I answered in 2013, quoted the answer in June of this year, and it hasn't changed.

On 1/14/2013 at 7:39 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

The statute in question prohibited carrying handguns outside the home...

 

Quote
Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards.

 

Posted from one of my four outbuildings, all of which seem like private places to me, not public ones.

If that's not specific enough, yes, I consider my porches and sheds private places.

Quote

Tanya Kerssen was standing on her front porch filming the procession of armored vehicles and riot gear–clad troops rolling through Whittier...

That doesn't seem particularly related to gun law to me, so this is not an answer.

7 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 7/29/2020 at 5:42 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

Simple question: was her porch a public place or not?

I'm not sure I've made comments either way, but a porch is not a living  space when it relates to gun law.

Still a simple question, still unanswered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 2:04 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:

I answered in 2013, quoted the answer in June of this year, and it hasn't changed.

If that's not specific enough, yes, I consider my porches and sheds private places.

That doesn't seem particularly related to gun law to me, so this is not an answer.

Still a simple question, still unanswered.

Poor dogballs. No takers. Some local who wants to animate a bullshitter should step up, and answer this burning question.

The bottom line: nobody wants (the very predictable AW) shootouts emanating  from the front porches and outbuildings of the dogballs types.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 8/28/2020 at 5:08 AM, jocal505 said:

The bottom line: nobody wants (the very predictable AW) shootouts emanating  from the front porches and outbuildings of the dogballs types.

More projection from Joe. Just because _you_ did so doesn't mean everyone does.

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

More projection from Joe. Just because _you_ did so doesn't mean everyone does.

 
 
Quote
On 8/28/2020 at 2:08 AM, jocal505 said:

The bottom line: nobody wants (the very predictable AW) shootouts emanating  from the front porches and outbuildings of the dogballs types.

 

Projection? Nope. Tom Ray @Quotidian Tom told us one day ago that he and his assembled crew would shoot a demonstrator, over a threat to his business.

Threats are creeping in, four times or so. Threats get the death penalty from Tom?

 

Words can (and will) be threats, especially in a tense situation or confrontation.

Thus, Dogballs made my point for me. He and his crew and their gunz need to be contained to the Tom Ray living room.

Edit. Which is why Scalia could not and did not include front porches and attached garages and detatched out-houses in the Heller decision. AW fire would result all over the place if Tom heard any threat from the outhouse.

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

Which is why Scalia could not and did not include front porches and attached garages and detatched out-houses in the Heller decision.

Or it could be that the case didn't address that topic. But you do you, Joe. Or, since you seem to be familiar with SC internal discussions - feel free to c-n-p them.

Tell us all again why _your_ random outdoors gunplay is acceptable, yet everyone else is supposed to just use stern words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2020 at 1:48 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

So you're telling me that Paul Revere, on his famous ride to alert the militias that the British we're on the way, wasn't telling all the militia to assemble indoors so that they could stave off the British invasion????  Preposterous!

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

So you're telling me that Paul Revere, on his famous ride to alert the militias that the British we're on the way, wasn't telling all the militia to assemble indoors so that they could stave off the British invasion????  Preposterous!

I am telling you that Paul Revere executed his mission in a rowboat...and then he spent the night in custody. PR's noble mission failed.

I once linked the details to ya, too.

You are a fluffy boy, and you cruise on urban myth.

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

So you're telling me that Paul Revere, on his famous ride to alert the militias that the British we're on the way, wasn't telling all the militia to assemble indoors so that they could stave off the British invasion????  Preposterous!

hard to fix being stupid...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2020 at 10:09 PM, Burning Man said:

So you're telling me that Paul Revere, on his famous ride to alert the militias that the British we're on the way, wasn't telling all the militia to assemble indoors so that they could stave off the British invasion????  Preposterous!

He was actually paddling a rowboat around in his enormous bathtub in his house, where rowboats are allowed. I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 9/24/2018 at 7:02 AM, Shambolic Tom said:

Petition for Re-hearing En Banc

The En Banc decision in the Peruta case was very careful to avoid saying anything about open carry. The arguments were about concealed carry only.

So now the petition above complains that talking about open carry ignores Peruta.

Ummm... yeah. Possibly because Peruta ignores open carry?

So the idea is that we needed to ignore open carry for the Peruta case, and now that it's been ignored, make a decision based on that ignorance. Because ignoring open carry implies that banning it is OK, along with concealed carry.

And we're back to the Brady Bunch position that inspired this thread: indoor militias!

Victory for indoor militias in the 9th Circuit

Young v Hawaii decision reversed by en banc 9th Circuit.
 

Quote

 

Americans have no right to carry guns in public, a divided en banc Ninth Circuit panel ruled Wednesday, reversing a prior Ninth Circuit decision that struck down a Hawaii firearm restriction as unconstitutional.

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

...

Although some circuit courts have upheld restrictions on carrying guns in public, Young’s attorney Alan Beck, of San Diego, argued that no court has gone as far as the Ninth Circuit did in its en banc opinion Wednesday.

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which finds the Second Amendment right does not apply outside the home at all, contradicts the decisions of every federal circuit court in the country that has ruled on this issue,” Beck said in an email. “We will be seeking Supreme Court review in order to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

...

 

 

 

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

Victory for indoor militias in the 9th Circuit

Young v Hawaii decision reversed by en banc 9th Circuit.
 

 

 

You have waxed silent, Tom Ray. Cuz in the background,  we shrink from two gun massacres...with AW's as the preventable tools.

 

 

Victory for indoor militias in the 9th Circuit 

Readers of Political Anarchy will recall what was exposed right here, on these boards, with Peruta I. When the en banc review was sorted, the English tradition which Heller stood upon did not allow gunz in public. There is no foundation for outdoor gunplay in the USA, cuz the Statute of Northampton, as adopted here during Colonial times.

Big Temporary (Duncan v Becerra) will face the same historical facts. The gun lobby uses Judge Benitez in San Diego because he has not grasped the  Peruta II, Fyock and Kolbe decisions.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 4/4/2013 at 11:34 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Is the front porch part of the home and subject to the same rules? We got a hint from a divided Supreme Court in a fourth amendment case.

 

Quote

Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government's gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage.

 

"The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. "And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion's, planted firmly on that curtilage — the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home."

 

He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Hmm... is an apartment hallway curtilage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In indoor militia news, the first merits amicus brief showed up yesterday in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett as SCOTUS Revisits Gun Control.

The reply brief of petitioners in that case addresses the BS jocal is constantly spewing about how guns were just never allowed outdoors for hundreds of years. The truth is, terrorizing people with guns was not allowed.

Nowadays, just having a gun is terrorizing people to hoplophobes, so it's easy to understand their confusion.

 

 

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

The truth is, terrorizing people with guns was not allowed.

Nowadays, just having a gun is terrorizing people to hoplophobes, so it's easy to understand their confusion.

 

 

WRONG. Intentional falsehood alert.

Basically, the presence of a weapon was a misdemeanor in common law. Brandishing or threats while armed became a felony.

The terror introduced by the mere presence of armor and swords set the basis of common law. The intimidators had problems with scholars and legislators, at that time, and now.

Quote

(My bullshit source is the Libertarian gun lobby writer, Clayton Craymer, let's roll)

The Statute of Northampton (1328) has been claimed as an ancient prohibition on civilians carrying deadly weapons in public. Analysis of its history, contemporary statutes, and subsequent interpretation reveals that the official translation was in error, and the Statute prohibited only the public wearing of armor, and even though only if likely to provoke fear.

 

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

This gent has a few problems. This is the second recent weapons offense, and it was an AW in CA, with a barrel sticking out of a bag, in a car. (Front license plate was missing.)

The first offense was last month-- an Uzi in LA, with a barrel sticking out of a bag, in a car. The tool in the bag,  he claimed, was just his bodyguard's gear. (Pulled over for vehicle code violation.) 

Hmmm. We need a psychologist on Political Anarchy.

  • Why the guns?
  • Why the extreme guns in CA?
  • Did this guy "need" the guns when he played in Seattle?
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

This fuk-stik is just an ignorant & uneducated ticking time bomb waiting to go off. I hope he gets his ass reamed by the judge.....

You’re just saying that because he’s  black.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idaho homeowner shot dead by police who mistook him for armed suspect

Elderly Homeowner Calls 911: Police Then Kill Him

May 19, 2021 — Three Denver police officers were justified in shooting at a ... to an armed robbery in December that left a homeowner dead and another woman ...
 
Deputy who shot SC homeowner through front window cleared by internal affairs
 

February 9, 2021 | 3:54pm | Updated

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

Idaho homeowner shot dead by police who mistook him for armed suspect

Elderly Homeowner Calls 911: Police Then Kill Him

May 19, 2021 — Three Denver police officers were justified in shooting at a ... to an armed robbery in December that left a homeowner dead and another woman ...
 
Deputy who shot SC homeowner through front window cleared by internal affairs
 

February 9, 2021 | 3:54pm | Updated

Another good reason to defund police and end qualified immunity.

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

Another good reason to defund police and end qualified immunity.

good point!

The best/worst one , I couldn't find , But a couple hear noises down  stairs tells wife to call 911 That an armed man is in the house, he goes down and finds an unarmed man robbing them and shoots and kills him, cops show up and see a man with a gun standing over a dead man and shot him ( the home owner) a lot blame for everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

That’’s some funny shit^^

As you might expect, I didn’t find it amusing in the least. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2021 at 11:33 AM, badlatitude said:
On 7/13/2021 at 11:10 AM, Burning Man said:

You can take my LEGOs from my cold dead hands!

You would understand the disgust if you had kids.

Jesus!  Lighten up, Francis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

New York Public Defenders Urge Supreme Court to Invalidate State’s Concealed-Carry Ban
 

Quote

 

A coalition of New York public-defender groups filed an amicus brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to invalidate the state’s concealed-carry ban. Among the attorney offices and legal-aid groups who signed the plea were the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and Brooklyn Defender Services.

...

The Black Attorneys of Legal Aid caucus, one of the top signers on the brief, represents more than 100 African-American legal-aid lawyers, most of whom are criminal defense attorneys, according to the brief. “Aside from providing quality legal representation to thousands of indigent persons throughout New York City, BALA advocates for racial justice within the legal sphere,” the organization’s description notes.

The Bronx Defenders and Brooklyn Defender Services, the other two major signatories, provide legal services to thousands of people in their respective boroughs each year. The Bronx and Brooklyn suffer from some of the highest crimes rates in the city, according to data from the Police Department of the City of New York.

...

 

Uh oh. An immature and volatile desire for gunpower.

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

Yeah, why not....in the pickpocket capitol of America? What could possibly go fuking wrong?.....:lol:

gun owners are such pussies. gotta hide their precious.

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

Yeah, why not....in the pickpocket capitol of America? What could possibly go fuking wrong?.....:lol:

surely you would notice someone trying to take your gun.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Of course you would. Then the next part of the equation is how it's secured on your person.

 

Think about that for a moment....or six.....

i guess i should have used the purple font.

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

DOGBALLS, ON GLORY ROAD.

And what a gem we have here. NOTE: The Libertarian "freedom fighter" Don Kates has provided several law briefs, just like this.  Same for Black Gunz Matter.  LMFAO. We are exploiting the racial situation, while smarmy.

Listing anecdotal examples in which New York residents or people visiting New York from out of state were penalized for gun possession, in many cases while using their firearm for self-defense...

 

 

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

But sometimes I'm not hunting or fishing.

Hunting for bad guys, fishing for complements.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

DOGBALLS, ON GLORY ROAD.

And what a gem we have here. NOTE: The Libertarian "freedom fighter" Don Kates has provided several law briefs, just like this.  Same for Black Gunz Matter.  LMFAO. We are exploiting the racial situation, while smarmy.

Listing anecdotal examples in which New York residents or people visiting New York from out of state were penalized for gun possession, in many cases while using their firearm for self-defense...

 

 

They chimed in too.

Jul 20 2021 Amicus brief of Immature & Volatile Guns Matter submitted.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 6:39 AM, jocal505 said:

Simple question. Do you have a grasp of the current issues faced by the NAACP?

Because today, right now, if we Search > Dogballs > NAACP, we find 158 references. 

LOL. One year ago, on this very page ^^^.  @Excoded Tom

Let the record show that, once busted, Tom could not sustain his pattern of extensive race-baiting within our community. How I do love this place. ;)

 

Let's play Florida Dumbass instead ok?

Quote

let's whirl the WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs (sheer scapegoating) and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, twenty-seven times, the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott fifteen times/yr, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for 166 mentions?

 

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

It's a toss-up between you and the Papered Faculty BarcoLounger who is the most annoying, the most tedious and the most pompous blowhards on S/A.

So in all fairness.....you both win a trophy. Seriously, you two should get married.....'cuz you're both a perfect match for each other......

How's the coke biz?  

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

Much better since I started renting out Call Girls & strippers. Shit basically sells itself now.....

Where is your arsenal? Still sailing through your background checks?

Now that you're here, you can play race-baiter with Dogballs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2021 at 9:45 AM, El Mariachi said:

Race baiter? Aren't you the one who told us here a few years back stating that it wasn't a good idea to let Blacks own firearms? Or words to that effect?.....

Yes, Rick. And I am convinced that whites having guns is a bad idea, as well.

The motivations and outcomes of gun violence for the two races differ, but basically, the problem is the same: that violence begets violence.

BTW, in the sixties, MLK laid  out the problem of patterns of violence in writing, with both tone and language set for the understanding of white boys. Things, meaning the basics, have not changed. Check him out.

The longer we try to use guns to establish domestic tranquility, the more it* will fail.

(* "it" means violence, Ricky. Nothing personal against gunz, except that they are ultra-violent.)

 

Welcome back, but I notice that you dumb down each thread you participate in.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WAAHHHH!
 

Quote

 

...The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association argues that the state’s licensing laws—which require gun owners to show “proper cause” before carrying a concealed weapon outside their home—violate the constitutional protections the Supreme Court has given to ammosexuals.

...

What’s even more depressing is that the public defenders make an excellent case. They argue that New York’s gun licensing requirements unconstitutionally deprive poor people of their rights to bear arms and give law enforcement an excuse to harass and incarcerate otherwise law-abiding Black and brown citizens, severely penalizing them for the kind of minor misconduct white people routinely get away with.

They’re not wrong. The public defenders calculate that it costs around $400 to get a gun permit in New York, plus a whole lot of time that is disproportionately difficult for the working poor to find. I don’t tend to think of private gun ownership as a constitutional right, but if you do, gating access to that right behind a $400 fee and an enormous time sink is not something we do for other constitutional principles.

The argument public defenders make against gun laws is exactly the same as the argument I and others have made against drug laws. Law enforcement over-punishes Black and Latinx gun owners, and uses the mere suspicion that gun laws are being violated to instigate stops, frisks, harassment, brutality, and murder. Everything that has been said about the need to liberalize drug laws is being said by the public defenders about the need to liberalize gun laws. And the statistics totally back them up.

...

 

 

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

GASLIGHT ALERT

You are like a ghost, Dogballs. You drift in and out of the threads, but can't discuss the sketchy material you provide. Did you read this thing?

  •  Why not encompass Full Blackstone? This brief goes Faux Blackstone.
  • The brief ignores the hundreds of cases in England where the mere presence of a weapon was held to be terrifying. 
  • The underlying authority for this brief is Joyce Lee Malcolm. (See pages 18-20). Her writing has failed peer review since 1983...and elsewhere, she quotes John R. Lott, FFS.
  • Surety bonds to carry guns are required throughout your law brief. (Surety bonds were widely used for gun control for 500 years, but you learned about this on Political Anarchy.)

Let's discuss inter-personal dynamics. It is the act of being armed during routine inter-actions which queers the playing field, and thus terrifies others. The presence (or threat) of a weapon provides the distraction (and imbalance) of a force multiplier. That (cheap) power is the point of packing, and the point of displaying a weapon, and it's even the underlying problem in a situation with an unrevealed, hidden weapon.

Quote

 

Judging the Ninth Circuit’s Use of History in Young v. Hawaii

By Patrick J. Charles on April 16, 2021

There remains an abundance of methodological problems that persist to this day despite historians correcting them. Perhaps the most notable is how both gun rights scholars and advocates often omit those pieces of historical evidence that show the Statute of Northampton prohibited both bringing force affray and the act of carrying dangerous weapons in public. As prominent sixteenth century English legal writer William Lambarde wrote in his highly influential 1582 treatise Eirenarcha:

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.

 

Quote

Lambarde also wrote about the Statute of Northampton in the treatise The Duties of Constables, in which he made sure to reference a recent proclamation made by Queen Elizabeth I on the matter:

[I]f 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]…

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2021 at 10:37 AM, jocal505 said:

Did you read this thing?

Get it through your thick head, Joe: I'm not like you. I read stuff before posting it. And read stuff you have posted to inform you of what it says.

 

On 8/3/2021 at 7:49 PM, Burning Man said:

I'm a card-carrying member of the LGC.

You probably owe all of Northhampton an apology!

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

Get it through your thick head, Joe: I'm not like you.

Hmmm. You are a self-appointed "reader,"  who can't discuss what he posted. And the scholarship within your law brief is that of the disgraced Joyce Lee Malcolm...whom you will not discuss.

But let's sum up the law, anyway.

Carrying a weapon was a misdemeanor under common law, as outlined by the Statute of Northampton. Carrying the same weapon in affray, with intent, elevated the crime to felony status. This setup was enforced by the English courts, beginning in the 1300's.

Let's continue. The legal outcome for packing in public was

1. jail (goale)

2. the confiscation of the offending weaponry and armor

3. a hearing before a magistrate,

4. and usually, a monetary fine.

 

This legal framework is documented by peer-reviewed, non-Libertarian scholars. Personal retribution with weapons was frowned upon, in public spaces,  until Larry Pratt came along in the 1970's.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2021 at 4:49 PM, Burning Man said:

I'm a card-carrying member of the LGC.

Your outfit's brief is using a bogus scholar. Her name is Joyce Lee Malcolm. She fabricated "The Standard Model," an embarrassing collection (and quite a selective piece of work).

You carry the card of this crowd, yet you have claimed you stand against falsehoods, that you insist on the facts. 

 

Just sayin'...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2021 at 8:54 AM, jocal505 said:

Personal retribution with weapons was frowned upon, in public spaces,  until Larry Pratt came along in the 1970's.

So it was Larry who authorized you to blast that stump?

 

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

So it was Larry who authorized you to blast that stump?

 

It was Larry who got you all spooled up. He is working your immaturity.

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

The entire constitution (including the 2nd Amendment) is intended to regulate the government and NOT "We the people".

The Second itself was about protecting the new government. "Well regulated" spelled out the quality protection needed, and Napoleon was soon a player.

Napoleonic Wars - Wikipedia  (1803–1815) 

The Micheovellian militia setup did not protect Jefferson on land in the War of 1812.

Washington burned: the Second Amendment has failed, from the get-go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2013 at 2:20 PM, Excoded Tom said:

My question for the reasonable gun controllers around here who at least claim to believe the second amendment is OK:

Do you believe it should apply outside of homes at all? Or do we only have a right to bear arms within our residences?

The reasons I have heard over the years for why someone needs a gun usually fall far short of reasonable.  The whole "for protection" thing is, for the most part, bullshit.  And everyone who is spewing the bullshit knows it.

We don't live in an action movie.  This isn't the wild west.  The places where the incidence of being shot is a real concern are the places where everyone has a gun. 

We all know that until the NRA became lobbyists for the gun manufacturers, there wasn't this hyperbolic defense of the 2nd Amendment. 

The questions you posit wouldn't even be asked if the NRA didn't bastardize the 2nd Amendment into a for-profit cause.  We need to stop trying to redefine a very simply stated amendment and just take it literally, as it was meant to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jules said:
On 1/11/2013 at 2:20 PM, Excoded Tom said:
...   ...

The reasons I have heard over the years for why someone needs a gun usually fall far short of reasonable.  The whole "for protection" thing is, for the most part, bullshit.  And everyone who is spewing the bullshit knows it.

We don't live in an action movie.  This isn't the wild west.  The places where the incidence of being shot is a real concern are the places where everyone has a gun. 

We all know that until the NRA became lobbyists for the gun manufacturers, there wasn't this hyperbolic defense of the 2nd Amendment. 

The questions you posit wouldn't even be asked if the NRA didn't bastardize the 2nd Amendment into a for-profit cause.  We need to stop trying to redefine a very simply stated amendment and just take it literally, as it was meant to be.

A reasonable intelligent answer, unfortunately Tom has proven over and over and over that on this issue, he is both crazed and dishonest. Your reasonableness will make absolutely zero difference, nor will any facts.

The fact that the Supreme Court has handed down decisions based on gun-nuttery rather than the actual words of the Constitution has really distorted and magnified the whole problem. After 3 generations of spoon-fed gun-nuttery, we have a large minority of citizens who BEE-EE-LEEEIVE that their God-given (God-given? In the US Constitution, who'd have thunk it) right to brandish a firearm is more important than their neighbors right to not get shot. By far. By so much that it makes them foaming-at-the-mouth mad to even hear such talk.

And unfortunately, no, I'm not exaggerating about any of this. Makes me sad.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

We need to stop trying to redefine a very simply stated amendment and just take it literally, as it was meant to be.

Well, OK, if taken literally, do you believe the second amendment applies outside of homes?

Link to post
Share on other sites