Jump to content

2nd Amendment: In the home only?


Recommended Posts

Biden Administration Asks the U.S. Supreme Court to Judicially Nullify the Right to Bear Arms

Well, that's the NRA's take anyway.
 

Quote

 

On September 21, the Biden Administration filed an amicus brief in the pending U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, supporting New York’s draconian and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear firearms in public for self-defense.

This NRA-supported challenge to New York’s “may-issue” licensing scheme for public handgun carry is the first Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law to reach the high court since 2010.

New York’s law presumptively denies the right to bear arms for self-defense unless a license applicant can demonstrate a special need for self-protection that distinguishes the person from the general population.

In practice, this means the rich and well-connected can get unrestricted carry licenses but ordinary people cannot, even if they actually face a greater risk of being violently victimized while going about their daily lives in public.

 

I agree about who can $how a $pecial need. But I found this funny:

Quote

The government’s brief, filed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice, also gives complete vindication to the NRA’s opposition to now Attorney General Merrick Garland’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, when he was a federal appellate judge. Anti-gun pundits had mocked that opposition at the time, falsely claiming there was no legal basis for it, even though Garland had voted to rehear a case that had ruled an outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment. Yet, as we had explained, the only plausible reason to support such a “do-over” was that the court had come to the wrong conclusion. Why repeat something already done correctly?

Possibly because my memory goes back a bit further, to the time when the NRA tried twice to scuttle the Parker (later Heller) case before SCOTUS could hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You would understand the disgust if you had kids.

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

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."

Posted Images

21 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Possibly because my memory goes back a bit further, to the time when the NRA tried twice to scuttle the Parker (later Heller) case before SCOTUS could hear it.

Ah, yes, THAT time. Are you an able reader, about the pre-Heller events and developments? Does your memory, perhaps, go back to Joyce Lee Malcolm? 

Might your memory go back to how Robert Levy paid for some embarrassing historical research? Let's discuss the Statute of Northampton, as quoted by Scalia's historian, in your Heller case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/19/2021 at 8:50 AM, Excoded Tom said:
On 7/10/2021 at 5:37 AM, Excoded Tom said:

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 case is now called NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v Bruen and has been scheduled for argument at SCOTUS on Nov 3, 2021.

The final reply from the petitioners came out a few days ago. That's their last shot before oral arguments in a couple of weeks.

Commenting on the upcoming case,

Public Defenders vs. Gun Control
 

Quote

 

...

"Each year," the groups told the Court, "we represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms. For our clients, New York's licensing requirement renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction. Worse, virtually all our clients whom New York prosecutes for exercising their Second Amendment rights are Black and Hispanic." And that "is no accident," the brief argued. "New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today."

According to the public defender groups, New York's scheme has had predictably "brutal" consequences for their clients. They have been "stopped, questioned, and frisked," "forcibly removed" from their homes, locked up "in dirty and violent jails and prisons," and "deprived….of their jobs, children, livelihoods, and ability to live in this country," all "because our clients exercised a constitutional right."

It's possible that such arguments will resonate with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court's leading critic of overpolicing and related law enforcement abuses. As the public defenders make abundantly clear in their brief, a Supreme Court decision against New York's gun control scheme would be a victory not only for the Second Amendment but for criminal justice reform too.

 

It's possible. I think they should. We'll soon see.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA lawsuit gives SCOTUS chance to confront 2nd Amendment's roots in racism

The title seems like this article might have been written by someone who read the Public Defenders brief above. Alas, it seems to be the work of a mythspewer.

Quote

 

The justices next month will hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to New York state’s restrictions on concealed handguns in public. The NRA and two gun owners are claiming the restrictions violate the Second Amendment, arguing that Americans have an unfettered right to carry guns in public for self-defense.

Conservative justices are expected to extend into the public sphere the gun rights established by the court in 2008 and 2010 for protection inside the home.

...

In the 5-4 ruling, conservative justices determined that the Second Amendment was originally intended to grant an individual right to have guns, tied to self-defense, and unconnected with militia service, such as the National Guard.

Justice Antonin Scalia, originalism's most prominent evangelist, said the Second Amendment right stemmed mainly from fears that the federal government might disarm citizen militias, enabling a standing army to rule.

The liberal's legal interpretation in Heller was that the Second Amendment grants a collective right in the context of state-regulated militias. Justice John Paul Stevens said that's evident in the first words of the Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

...

 

Another indoor militia believer. Sigh. They really didn't muster in homes.

The "collective right" interpretation was abandoned by Lawrence Tribe before the Heller case and Justice Stevens' opinion begins this way:

 

Quote

 

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

The article goes on to talk about how the militias were all about suppressing slaves, which ignores the militias in non-slave states.

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

NRA lawsuit gives SCOTUS chance to confront 2nd Amendment's roots in racism

The title seems like this article might have been written by someone who read the Public Defenders brief above. Alas, it seems to be the work of a mythspewer.

Another indoor militia believer. Sigh. They really didn't muster in homes. INFANTILE BULLSHIT AWARD

The "collective right" interpretation was abandoned by Lawrence Tribe before the Heller case and Justice Stevens' opinion begins this way:

 

The article goes on to talk about how the militias were all about suppressing slaves, which ignores the militias in non-slave states.

Good article. Is this the right thread for the Tom Dogballs Ray discussion on this?

Yo Tom, yeah, let's have a beer with this author. First round is on me.

1082051057_hassankanuslavesandthesecond.jpg

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

Another indoor militia believer. Sigh. They really didn't muster in homes.

JACKASS MILITIA ALERT

footnote 190: The battle of Camden took place in 1780. General Horatio Gates of the Continental Army placed Virginia and North Carolina militia units in the center and on the right of his position. “They alone outnumbered the whole British force,” writes historian Charles Royster. Royster, supra note 143, at 282 (1979). “But they ran without firing a shot.” Id

source: Carl Bogus, from Tom's link.  

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.pdf (thomsonreuters.com)

Quote

which ignores the militias in non-slave states.

Nope. Slavery concern was streaming within the discussions of the Second Amendment in the Continental Congress, north and south...

Footnote 192: A year earlier at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Luther Martin of Maryland raised the converse problem -- the North being forced to march its militia south. Martin suggested that the slave system would unfairly burden the Northern states because they would be bound to protect their sister states from insurrection. See Anti-Federalist Papers, supra note 60, at 161 (quoting proceedings of Aug. 21-22, 1787). In this same exchange with Martin, John Rutledge of South Carolina extinguished any thought that slavery might be a negotiable subject at the Constitutional Convention with his now famous statement that “(t)he true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.” Id. Rutledge said he would be willing to exempt the Northern states from an obligation to defend the THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, 31 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 309 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 45 Southern states from slave insurrection. See id. Although Rutledge's suggestion of granting the North an exemption from the duty to suppress slave insurrections in the South was not acted upon by the Constitutional Convention, Maryland later proposed a constitutional amendment providing that the “(m)ilitia not be subject to the rules of Congress, nor marched out of the state, without the consent of the legislature of such state.” 2 The Debates on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification 555 (1993). Query whether, by raising the possibility of Northern militia being ordered to march to the South, Luther Martin unintentionally stimulated fellow delegate George Mason's thinking about the reverse problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC. The Continental Congress was actively implicit in slave suppression. The Second Amendment was their tool, to secure the free state...the one with all the slaves. And they needed the Northern militias, to protect the southern militias, FFS.

Quote

 

(See footnote 233): In response, Charles Pinckney, a Federalist who served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, did not challenge the assumption that the North might like to interfere with the slave system. Instead, he argued that the South had made a necessary bargain:

The honorable gentleman alleges that the Southern States are weak. I sincerely agree with him. We are so weak that by ourselves we could not form a union strong enough for the purpose of effectually protecting each other. . . . I am of the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions the gentleman has quoted -- that, while there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared in South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. . . . We (at the Constitutional Convention) endeavored to obviate the objections that were made in the best manner we could. . . . By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that the importation shall be then stopped; it may be continued. We have a security that the general government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is granted; and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights nor expressed were reserved by the several states. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could . . . . Id. at 283-86.

A speech delivered by Patrick Dollard later in the South Carolina ratification debates also evidences paranoia about Northern and, therefore, federal designs. “My constituents are highly alarmed at the large and rapid strides which this new government has taken towards despotism,” he said. Id. at 337-38. “They say it is big with political mischiefs, and pregnant with a greater variety of impending woes to the good people of Southern States, especially South Carolina, than all the plagues supposed to issue from the poisonous box of Pandora.” Id. Georgia: Debates in Georgia's ratifying convention were not recorded. From the convention's journals, which recorded motions and votes, as well as letters written by delegates, we know that after no more than three days of debate, the delegates voted to ratify the Constitution by a vote of 26 to 0. The speed and decisiveness of the vote is attributed to the fact that Georgia feared an impending war with the Creek Indian nation and hoped for protection from a strengthened Union. However, one delegate expressed the view that the Constitution should be ratified with a provision requiring a second convention a set number of years later to reconsider the interests of the Southern states, which might not be able to adequately protect the slave trade under the constitutional framework. See Smith, To Form a More Perfect Union, supra note 66, at 77-78 (1993).

 

  •  
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2021 at 7:22 AM, jocal505 said:

Yo Tom, yeah, let's have a beer with this author. First round is on me.

It's going to get really awkward when I turn and ask you whether our guest appears immature and volatile to you, but I can't resist the opportunity, so OK. You might want to warn him that's going to happen when you invite him.

Back on topic,

In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public
 

Quote

 

...

One brief supporting the challengers comes from a group of public defenders and Black legal aid lawyers, who tell the justices that the consequences of New York’s licensing scheme are “brutal” for racial and ethnic minorities, who are “routinely … charged with a violent felony for simply possessing a firearm outside of the home, a crime only because they had not gotten a license beforehand.” Another brief supporting the challengers argues that New York’s law prevents groups that are particularly vulnerable to violent crime – such as women, LGBTQ+ people, and religious minorities – from carrying a handgun to protect themselves.

...

 

Those NY public defenders and Black legal aid lawyers are notorious right wing gun nutz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are public defenders. New York’s gun laws eviscerate our clients’ Second Amendment rights.
 

Quote

 

When Jose was 22 years old, a stranger slashed his 16-year-old brother across the face on the way home from school. One year later, police stopped and frisked Jose on the street after they claimed to smell marijuana and see Jose move “furtively.” They didn’t find any marijuana, but they did find a pistol. When the police arrested Jose, he protested. He told them what happened to his brother, that he did not intend to harm anyone, and that he had a Second Amendment right to protect himself and his family. Nonetheless, New York prosecutors charged Jose with second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a “violent felony” that applies to virtually all simple firearm possession cases in New York, both outside and inside the home. Faced with a 3.5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, Jose pled to a lesser charge. His sentence was one year on Rikers Island — a “good deal” for simple firearm possession in New York City. For exercising a constitutional right, Jose is now a so-called violent felon.

As we argued in an amicus brief, we hope New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ends prosecutions like Jose’s. In District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court recognized a constitutional right to possess a firearm in self-defense. Despite those decisions, that right has been a myth for our clients. New York law says that if someone does not first obtain a government license, then they have no Second Amendment right anywhere, both outside and in their own home. That licensing requirement is the key to New York’s ban on firearm possession: It is a pretext whose true purpose is to make firearm possession unlawful. For our clients, it makes the Second Amendment a legal fiction.

In New York State Rifle, however, the court could finally enforce the Second Amendment by invalidating New York’s pretextual licensing regime. The constitutional problems are clear. In New York City, where we practice, the licensing structure allocates total and unilateral discretion to the NYPD to decide whose firearm possession is lawful and whose is a “violent felony.” It charges hefty fees, disproportionately burdening indigent people. And it results in a wildly disparate allocation of licenses, unsurprisingly favoring people who are associated with the police. No part of this gatekeeping structure is consonant with a fundamental constitutional right.

But the problems don’t end there: New York also aggressively and specifically targets Black and Latinx people for firearm possession under the pretext that their possession is unlicensed. As former Mayor Michael Bloomberg explained, the city believes that racially disparate approach is justified. As a result, virtually all — about 96% — of the people arrested by the NYPD for simple firearm possession are Black or Latinx. Thus, while white people throughout the nation amass firearm arsenals even as hobbies, Black and Latinx New Yorkers are arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for simply possessing a single pistol for self-defense. 

...

 

Meh. The constitutional rights of black and Latinx people are only important sometimes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the Gun Rights Case Before the Supreme Court Matters So Much
 

Quote

 

...

The Supreme Court has not ruled on a gun-rights case since landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 upholding that the Second Amendment protects a private citizen’s right to keep a firearm in the home for “traditionally lawful purposes,” including self-defense. It could now decide whether private citizens have the constitutional right to carry that firearm outside of their home, as well.

...

 

Not really "could," I think they will now decide whether militias operate indoors or outside.

And it's about time. It's a really stupid question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Why the Gun Rights Case Before the Supreme Court Matters So Much
 

Not really "could," I think they will now decide whether militias operate indoors or outside.

And it's about time. It's a really stupid question.

A silly straw man, presented by a foolish hack. It's the wrong question. 

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

A silly straw man, presented by a foolish hack. It's the wrong question. 

Haven't you been paying attention here?

It's critically important that we focus on that first part of the second amendment, excluding to the extent possible that inconvenient part about the right of the people.

So... if we're going to talk about whether the second applies outside the home, we should focus on whether militias operate indoors or out.

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

Haven't you been paying attention here?

It's critically important that we focus on that first part of the second amendment, excluding to the extent possible that inconvenient part about the right of the people.

So... if we're going to talk about whether the second applies outside the home, we should focus on whether militias operate indoors or out.

I am tired of the bullshit, Scrotum Tom, because I spent the week reading about what Madison said and did, and why. Such actual history, you will not touch upon...yet the damning trail of logic can be found in your links.

THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.pdf (thomsonreuters.com)

If we interpret the Second as Heller did, an individual right is granted. Jefferson suggested this right to guns belonged to freemen...which would have included many blacks, in many states. Since no blacks were welcome in the Southern militias, simply tying the Second to the militia excluded all blacks. 

The militia, and the Second when written, were tailored for slavecatchers. The "prefatory" DNA of the Second rocked with racial bullshit. BTW >James Madison totally neglected mention of confrontations and self defense.

If the slaves escaped to the outdoors, it was an outdoor militia. If the escaped slaves found a roof, it became an indoor militia.

 

 

On this historic day of Supreme Court's review of the Second Amendment, my second observation is that CATO owns the Supreme Court.

See the dogballs glittering in chrome, swinging over a planet fatally contaminated by CATO.

dogballs 7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the glory! Reading material sourced by Tom Dogballs Ray

THE OUTDOOR MILITIA

See p339.  At the Battle of Bunker Hill, for example, Americans, firing from well-fortified positions on top of the hill, successfully repulsed two waves of British soldiers foolishly attempting a frontal assault. 150 They inflicted overwhelming losses on the enemy; some British companies had casualty rates of ninety percent, and every member of the British commander's personal staff was killed or wounded. 151

Nevertheless, a third attack forced the Americans to retreat, not because the British had won the upper hand, but because, in the words of Robert Leckie, “a steady trickle of desertions had drained (the defenders) like a leaking pipe.” 152 Meanwhile, fresh militia troops nearby refused to come forward. 153 One colonel of the militia said he was too “exhausted” from building fortifications *p340 to lead his men to the battle front. 154

 

Thus, although they publicly celebrated Bunker Hill as a victory and praised the militia, 155 the more astute leaders of the Revolution realized almost immediately that the militia were not up to the job. Charles Royster writes:

Early in the war some revolutionaries argued that the militia, which had proven its competence at Lexington and Bunker Hill, could sustain a large part of the resistance to the British. By late 1776 little attachment to this idea remained . . . One year's experience convinced most American officials that they needed a standing army to fight the war. See footnote 173,  p66)

 

Almost all revolutionaries agreed that a standing army -- no matter how suspect and unwelcome -- was necessary. Every state supported the idea that a Continental Army should bear the main fighting; every state tried to recruit and supply it; every state preferred to be defended by it. 156 

 It was not only American military commanders who learned that the reality of the militia did not correspond to war rhetoric. The Continental Congress relented and authorized raising an army only after receiving message after message from Washington explaining in great detail the inadequacies of the militiamen and volunteers. 174 When Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia, informed Washington that the state was unable to fill its quota of regular troops but would send volunteers to make up the difference, Washington refused the offer. Volunteers were “ungovernable” Washington explained. 175

@Uncooperative Tom @Seriatim TomFootnote  174: Disciplinary problems were so bad that Washington asked Congress for authority to increase the maximum punishment he could inflict for infractions such as shooting guns in camp or plundering from 100 to 500 lashes with the whip. Although Madison supported Washington's request, Congress never granted it.

 

Even those who had sung the praises of the militia were reluctantly converted. According to Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson's “faith that the militia could be counted on at least to defend home and family was shattered as time and again the raw troops broke ranks and ran from seasoned British regulars.” 176

The Founders, therefore, had a different view of the militia after the war than they had when the Revolution began. For many people, if not most, faith in the universal militia composed of the whole “body of the people” had been shattered.

The postwar attitude is evident in The Federalist Number 29, written by Alexander Hamilton.

Carl Bogus

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUSBlog Coverage

Quote

 

The liberal justices also questioned whether New York’s permitting regime is actually as stringent as Clement suggested. Kagan noted that Clement’s brief portrayed the New York scheme as one that denies most people the ability to carry a gun for self-defense. But, she posited, if statistics showed that the state actually grants many of the applications, the court might view the case differently. And at more than one point in the argument, the liberal justices advocated for additional proceedings in the lower court to develop more facts on how many permit applications the state has granted – a move that would, at least for now, stave off a ruling on the merits of the challengers’ claim.

 

I saw in the piece Joe posted a claim that NY grants 65% of applications for unrestricted carry permits. Uh huh. They're granted in upstate counties and in places like NYC for those who $how proper cau$e to the right officials.

People who can't or won't $how cau$e to get a special dispensation to exercise their rights know better than to waste time applying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/majority-of-supreme-court-appears-to-think-ny-gun-law-is-too-restrictive/ar-AAQi4qu

"Majority of Supreme Court appears to think NY gun law is too restrictive"

"Justice Brett Kavanaugh was more direct: “Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself?”"

 

 

Well what do ya know, Even your supreme court judge thinks Americanos have a violent culture. 

 

 

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

People who can't or won't $how cau$e to get a special dispensation to exercise their rights know better than to waste time applying.

 Got any stats, Dogballs? You need to tell these victimized souls about boating accidents, coach. 

 

Quote

 Joe posted a claim that NY grants 65% of applications for unrestricted carry permits. Uh huh.

Joe posted sourced evidence. You posted a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the tea leaves
 

Quote

 

...

Kavanaugh's focus on the discretionary nature of New York's licensing scheme also pointed the way to a narrower win for the Second Amendment side. In effect, the Court might say that constitutional rights deserve better treatment than a discretionary state regime like this one and then tell New York to go back to the drawing board.

 

Seems like a good guess to me.

In the context of any other protected right, lots of people would be able to see how giving cops discretion over who gets to exercise the right is going to result in racist outcomes. Always has, always will.

In the context of this right, I expect at least some of the Supreme Court to see things that way. The discretion that allowed a sheriff to deny MLK's permit for obviously racist reasons has to go.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

Reading the tea leaves
 

Seems like a good guess to me.

In the context of any other protected right, lots of people would be able to see how giving cops discretion over who gets to exercise the right is going to result in racist outcomes. Always has, always will.

In the context of this right, I expect at least some of the Supreme Court to see things that way. The discretion that allowed a sheriff to deny MLK's permit for obviously racist reasons has to go.

 

Your link did not go to racial matters, but you did, on Political Anarchy. 

If you insist on discussing racial relations, must we anchor the discussion to the level of gun violence, and Judge Taney?

GUNS AND RACE: DEAD END ALERT

When the blacks try to go with guns, it still doesn't work out for them. The statistics of the Philandro Castile Syndrome are significant. Malcolm X and MLK became targets of guns.

You have no plan, Dogballs, for your gun-driven social engineering, but IMO gearing up for combat, your focus, is a lousy approach.

Anyway, you should get behind Grandmaster Jay. Remember, you need a militia to join, just in case, so consider the NFAC, the crispest "militia" I have ever seen. 

gettyimages-1228367986_edit-1536x1024.jp

 

NFAC: Why is Grandmaster Jay being prosecuted and what is his militia? (thetrace.org)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2021 at 7:14 AM, Keith said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/majority-of-supreme-court-appears-to-think-ny-gun-law-is-too-restrictive/ar-AAQi4qu

"Majority of Supreme Court appears to think NY gun law is too restrictive"

"Justice Brett Kavanaugh was more direct: “Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area, and I want to be able to defend myself?”"

 

 

Well what do ya know, Even your supreme court judge thinks Americanos have a violent culture. 

 

 

Not sure where you got the idea that anyone has disputed that we don't have a violent culture.  I've been saying for years here that we have a violence problem.  But I hates to break it to yaz - but gunz did not 'cause" the violence.  The reasons for why we have a violence problem is many fold.  One of the most of which is that Prohibition Part II has fueled the violence and made it so profitable that the ea$y money that the threat of going to jail for murder just doesn't outweigh the profit motive that Prohibition Part II allows.  And a lot of the domestic disputes, murder, etc are often a spin off of PP2.

I think given that we have a violent culture - I don't think it's too much to ask that citizen be allowed to have a tool to protect themselves.  Because when seconds count, the Po-LEECE are only minutes away.

 

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

One very positive thing about this case is I might finally see @jocal505's head explode.  :lol:

I'll be okay if I can keep all the fluff out. 

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

One very positive thing about this case is I might finally see @jocal505's head explode.  :lol:

I'll be okay if I can keep all the fluff out. 

What will you do when you find out that outdoor militias actually are a "thing"??

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

What will you do when you find out that outdoor militias actually are a "thing"??

Wrong question: your focus is on local fluff, and propaganda, Jeffie.

The militia angle was not covered (or even mentioned, AFAIK), in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The "militia" is fluff; it is very prefatory in 2021; neither indoor nor outdoor armed mobs were players yesterday, except in Dogballsville.

The militia was (and is, IMO) an embarrassing dud. It will be a dynamic, chaotic dud when the Court that Dark Money Built is through.

Where is The Dogballs? Deep in thought? Reading Libertarian media? @ Scrotum Tom @Seriatim Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2021 at 2:34 PM, Burning Man said:

Not sure where you got the idea that anyone has disputed that we don't have a violent culture.  I've been saying for years here that we have a violence problem.  But I hates to break it to yaz - but gunz did not 'cause" the violence.  The reasons for why we have a violence problem is many fold.  One of the most of which is that Prohibition Part II has fueled the violence and made it so profitable that the ea$y money that the threat of going to jail for murder just doesn't outweigh the profit motive that Prohibition Part II allows.  And a lot of the domestic disputes, murder, etc are often a spin off of PP2.

I think given that we have a violent culture - I don't think it's too much to ask that citizen be allowed to have a tool to protect themselves.  Because when seconds count, the Po-LEECE are only minutes away.

 

Oh oh, here's one from your team....... Hows your stock pile?

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alleged-jan-6-rioter-jeremy-brown-tries-to-sell-home-on-zillow-accidentally-reveals-cache-of-explosives-fbi

 

"A former Green Beret and one-time congressional candidate arrested last month for his alleged participation in the Capitol riot was illegally stockpiling explosives prior to being jailed on charges related to the Jan. 6 pro-Trump siege, according to an FBI search warrant filed Friday in Washington, D.C. federal court. When federal agents searched 47-year-old Jeremy Brown’s Florida home in October, they reported finding a short-barrel rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, more than 8,000 rounds of ammunition, and two hand grenades. But it was a picture included in a sales listing for his house on Zillow that led to his latest troubles. In a photo from “what appears to be Brown’s office,” FBI agents spotted a whiteboard with columns labeled “Food,” “Clothing,” “Shelter,” “Currency,” “Communicate,” “Move,” and “Shoot,” the warrant states. In the “shoot” column, it continues, “there are numerous firearms listed and explosive devices such as ‘flash bangs.’” The entry on the whiteboard indicated that Brown had the flash bangs “on hand,” the filing says, adding that Brown “is not registered to possess explosive devices.”"

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

Wrong question: your focus is on local fluff, and propaganda, Jeffie.

The militia angle was not covered (or even mentioned, AFAIK), in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The "militia" is fluff; it is very prefatory in 2021; neither indoor nor outdoor armed mobs were players yesterday, except in Dogballsville.

The militia was (and is, IMO) an embarrassing dud. It will be a dynamic, chaotic dud when the Court that Dark Money Built is through.

Where is The Dogballs? Deep in thought? Reading Libertarian media? @ Scrotum Tom @Seriatim Tom

You might want to tell your fellow elk like @Raz'r, @badlatitude, @benwynn and others that the militia angle of the 2nd A is just fluff.  They and their elk seem to want to hang their hats on the militia angle as invalidating the 2A.

Y'all need to coordinate your message better.  Just saying.

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

Oh oh, here's one from your team....... Hows your stock pile?

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alleged-jan-6-rioter-jeremy-brown-tries-to-sell-home-on-zillow-accidentally-reveals-cache-of-explosives-fbi

 

"A former Green Beret and one-time congressional candidate arrested last month for his alleged participation in the Capitol riot was illegally stockpiling explosives prior to being jailed on charges related to the Jan. 6 pro-Trump siege, according to an FBI search warrant filed Friday in Washington, D.C. federal court. When federal agents searched 47-year-old Jeremy Brown’s Florida home in October, they reported finding a short-barrel rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, more than 8,000 rounds of ammunition, and two hand grenades. But it was a picture included in a sales listing for his house on Zillow that led to his latest troubles. In a photo from “what appears to be Brown’s office,” FBI agents spotted a whiteboard with columns labeled “Food,” “Clothing,” “Shelter,” “Currency,” “Communicate,” “Move,” and “Shoot,” the warrant states. In the “shoot” column, it continues, “there are numerous firearms listed and explosive devices such as ‘flash bangs.’” The entry on the whiteboard indicated that Brown had the flash bangs “on hand,” the filing says, adding that Brown “is not registered to possess explosive devices.”"

Other than the flashbangs - there was nothing illegal or unusual about any of that other gear there.  Unless the SBR and SBS were not legally registered and tax stamped.  

I have had several short barreled rifles.  Or I did until the unfortunate boating accident of course.  :lol:

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

Wrong question: your focus is on local fluff, and propaganda, Jeffie.

The militia angle was not covered (or even mentioned, AFAIK), in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The "militia" is fluff; it is very prefatory in 2021; neither indoor nor outdoor armed mobs were players yesterday, except in Dogballsville.

The militia was (and is, IMO) an embarrassing dud. It will be a dynamic, chaotic dud when the Court that Dark Money Built is through.

Where is The Dogballs? Deep in thought? Reading Libertarian media? @ Scrotum Tom @Seriatim Tom

 

1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

You might want to tell your fellow elk like @Raz'r, @badlatitude, @benwynn and others that the militia angle of the 2nd A is just fluff.  They and their elk seem to want to hang their hats on the militia angle as invalidating the 2A.

Y'all need to coordinate your message better.  Just saying.

I'm not "invalidating" the 2A with the militia angle.  The "militia angle" is actually part of the 2A.  I mean... seriously... Jesus Fucking Christ.  It's literally mentioned in the amendment.  How does one invalidate an amendment by quoting it?

Otherwise, I'm giving Jocal props just for the "Dogballsville" reference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, benwynn said:

@Raz'r, @badlatitude, @benwynn and others that the militia angle of the 2nd A is just fluff. 

It's hard to believe that at one time you were an Air Force officer, sworn to protect the Constitution, and all that time you didn't have a clue what you were sworn to protect. I hope you know that this puts everything you have argued about the Second Amendment on this forum in question. 

 

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

 

I'm not "invalidating" the 2A with the militia angle.  The "militia angle" is actually part of the 2A.  I mean... seriously... Jesus Fucking Christ.  It's literally mentioned in the amendment.  How does one invalidate an amendment by quoting it?

Otherwise, I'm giving Jocal props just for the "Dogballsville" reference. 

You sure seemed concerned with the lack of what would, in your view, be adequate training and pretty appalled by the idea that just checking in to see whether The People have battlefield .22's or other appropriate military equipment could be considered adequate by Publius.

Why? What does any of it have to do with the right of the People to keep and bear arms?

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

The People have battlefield .22's or other appropriate military equipment could be considered adequate by Publius.

Did our associate Publius race-bait around in his community?

Was he an un-cooperative type? Did he deny he had battle guns, after hiding them? Did he recognize his militia officers, and their authority over himself? 

Just asking.

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

How does one invalidate an amendment by quoting it?

Just go get Scalia. The militia words are there,cuz the sincere effort of Madison and the VIrginia slave cathers of the day, but Mr. Scalia nullified them, using historical mumbo jumbo... to support Larry Pratt and lethally armed confrontations.

 

GOT PRAGMATISM?

My scholars (e.g. Patrick Charles and Darrel Miller) won the historical argument, IMO, based on context and facts, and taught me the "why" of the Second. It was super-cool to publicly refute the six Libertarian law brief historians, and their cherry-picking, on PA, circa 2017 and 2018, using their own page numbers and text.

Now, with Bruen, in a shock to me, the writing of the legitimate scholars has abandoned their (well-vetted) win: they took this issue forward, based on the supposed individual rights, granted by The Court that Dark Money Built.

Move on. That's how ya play, legitimately, with SC decisions.

  • One of the Libertarians' writers, Mr. David Kopel, Independent, has been exposed as a paid shill who is not documenting his regular sugar daddy in court, being paid $$225K/yr by the NRA, while presenting himself in court and the media as an independent, as such.

*****

 Tom is gaslighting us, by dominating the conversation, with both the militia and with the dogballs/white noise (the latter since Dec. 9, 2016).

The militia (and boogered versions of USA v. Miller) are basically out of this picture now, except for myth. But I will admit that myth makes great  trailer court propaganda.

dogballs .png

BTW, if you want a Libertarian government based on myth, vote for Roger Stone. He says he is running as a Libertarian candidate for the governorship of FL.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2021 at 2:34 PM, Burning Man said:

I think given that we have a violent culture - I don't think it's too much to ask that citizen be allowed to have a tool to protect themselves. 

Just listen to yourself, a leading intellectual around here, ruminating on violence. Now, bear in mind the deal that only a small part of  violent crime involves guns.

You are choosing to participate in, and escalate, the admittedly common violent crime, which mostly excludes guns, with guns.

Maybe Pee Wee would buy your mystification of the source of violence. I don't.

  • You use an AW for home protection, based on skillset
  • You are a competition shooter at 5/8 mile sniper distances
  • You are a certified gun range instructor
  • All rapists caught in the act are to be gunned down if possible
  • Shirtless tirechuckers who advance will be gunned down
  • If 26 perps are shot by 26 vigilantes, we are all good with that
  • But you can't pin down the source of our violence. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

You sure seemed concerned with the lack of what would, in your view, be adequate training and pretty appalled by the idea that just checking in to see whether The People have battlefield .22's or other appropriate military equipment could be considered adequate by Publius.

Why? What does any of it have to do with the right of the People to keep and bear arms?

You bring up idea that the People have the right to keep and bear arms.   It's like it appears somewhere and you are referencing it.  Do you hold your hand up to the screen covering the left side when you read it?

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

You bring up idea that the People have the right to keep and bear arms.   It's like it appears somewhere and you are referencing it.  Do you hold your hand up to the screen covering the left side when you read it?

Heck no! That's the part that means that battlefield .22's and other weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" deserve the highest level of second amendment protection. Why would I want to abandon that protection?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment
 

Quote

 

The Founders, therefore, had a different view of the militia after the war than they had when the Revolution began. For many people, if not most, faith in the universal militia composed of the whole “body of the people” had been shattered. The post-war attitude is evident in The Federalist Number 29, written by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton defended the wisdom of placing the organization and discipline of the militia in the  *343  hands of Congress.177 “What plan for the regulation of the militia
may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen,” Hamilton wrote.178 However, were he to deliver his thoughts on the militia to the federal legislature,179 he would offer the following views:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;
...
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Although everyone may not have agreed, this was the prevailing view.

 

Hah! Just kidding. Of course those are the parts of Federalist 29 that should remain hidden and NOT the parts quoted in the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2021 at 1:01 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

You sure seemed concerned with the lack of what would, in your view, be adequate training and pretty appalled by the idea that just checking in to see whether The People have battlefield .22's or other appropriate military equipment could be considered adequate by Publius.

Why? What does any of it have to do with the right of the People to keep and bear arms?

That's the part that means that battlefield .22's and other weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" deserve the highest level of second amendment protection. 

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

The Hidden History of the 2nd Amendment
 

Hah! Just kidding. Of course those are the parts of Federalist 29 that should remain hidden and NOT the parts quoted in the article.

Lame. (But nice of you to show up.)

Did you read your own source? If so, do you care to address the broad strokes of the content with us?  Because this is Carl Bogus now, Dogballs, and he is widely quoted in court. 

Let's review. You like to spam away about race plus guns, a lot, and Mr. Bogus is doing just that, wrt how the Second Amendment was fabricated.

  • The author lays out how gun rights were a fucking slavecatcher deal?
  • The South needed the security of the Union?
  • Slave management looked for backup from the Northern militias?
  • Thanks for the link, mate.

Let us discuss the angle of race and the Second Amendment, historically.

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

Hah! Just kidding. Of course those are the parts of Federalist 29 that should remain hidden and NOT the parts quoted in the article.

AH, RESEARCH BY TOM RAY

You clipped Hamilton's conclusion. You clipped the heart of the matter. You are convoluting the work of Carl T. Bogus: that Hamilton was reflecting on the recent failures of the militia. AH and Jefferson were speaking for a "select corps," made up of young men only. A well-drilled, standing, federal army, basically.

  • (Hamilton, from the article, unclipped:) To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be real grievance to the people . . . . and would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which . . . would not fall far short of a million pounds . . . . The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. 180
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, benwynn said:

That's the part that means that battlefield .22's and other weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" deserve the highest level of second amendment protection. 

You don't bring up idea that the People have the right to keep and bear arms.   It's like it doesn't appear anywhere and you aren't referencing it.  Do you hold your hand up to the screen covering the right side when you read it?

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

Did you read your own source? If so, do you care to address the broad strokes of the content with us?  Because this is Carl Bogus now, Dogballs, and he is widely quoted in court. 

How many times is it going to take before you realize that I'm not like you and so I never post anything I have not read? Jeez you're slow.

Yes, his broad strokes are in support of, and supported by, the distinguished historian Bellesiles.

Quote

In response to these charges, Emory University, where Professor Bellesiles holds an appointment, established a panel of three distinguished scholars from other universities to conduct a review. On October 25, 2002, following this review, the panel issued a report. In it, the panel members found "evidence of falsification" with respect to one of the questions they were asked to consider; spoke of "serious failures of and carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records and the use of quantitative analysis" on two others; and questioned "his veracity" with respect to a fourth. They also concluded that he had "contravened" the norms of historical scholarship both "as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Association's definition of scholarly 'integrity.'"

I guess quoting him seemed clever in 1998. It doesn't any more.

As for his idea of quoting federalist 29 and clipping out the part that directly contradicts what he was saying? That can't really have seemed clever even in 1998 and seems bogus today too.

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

How many times is it going to take before you realize that I'm not like you and so I never post anything I have not read? Jeez you're slow.

Sorry, but you show no signs of having read it, Dogballs. You said it neglected Northern militias, yet it laid out the South's need for support from Northern militias, in a few ways. 

The  article laid out a half dozen ways in which the Second Amendment was constructed to protect slaveholders. The DNA of the Second was stacked against Afro-Americans, from the start. This you will not discuss. 

Are you sure you read it?

Hmmm, Carl T Bogus did not manipulate The Federalist 29, you did. Bogus used it to show Madison's disappointment in your jackass militia concepts; to lay out their popular desire for a standing army of young, well-trained soldiers. 

You want to peddle the minuteman thing, which did not work then, and is an even worse idea today. You are The Dogballs.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

 

Yes, his broad strokes are in support of, and supported by, the distinguished historian Bellesiles.

I guess quoting him seemed clever in 1998. It doesn't any more.

As for his idea of quoting federalist 29 and clipping out the part that directly contradicts what he was saying? That can't really have seemed clever even in 1998 and seems bogus today too.

The record will show that Michael Bellesaisles had exactly three lousy footnotes, and Clayton Craymer and Joyce Lee Malcolm drove him from academia...while being well-paid by the (incredibly corrupt) NRA. YCMTSU.

Next, the record will show that latter two soon became Libertarian mis-information machines. They both made a career of writing historical law brief distortions.

  • Malcolm's Standard Model Bible was published by the NRA in 1994.
  • ~2006, during Parker, Malcolm was paid by Robert Levy, CATO's Chairman, to tailor The Standard Model, as a tool for the Heller case. The research was done in his 6000ft Florida Condo. Levy put the CATO brand on this product, which showed poor judgement.
  • Cramer is sketchy, to the core. His law brief convinced Scalia that the term to "bear arms" was a pedestrian term, but today's computerized search function displays 97% military use. (Scholarship: Kozunkanich)
  • FWIW Malcolm, Cramer, Halbrook, Kopel, Barrett, and Kates (Libertarians all) have failed peer review.
  • Tom Dogballs Ray will neither support, nor reject, nor discuss, "The Standard Model of the Second Amendment." (Hmmm. Dishonesty by discretionary omission.)

Lois Schwoerer and Patrick Charles guided 17 others with PhD's in History to the conclusion that the Standard Model is a patchwork of wishful thinking. They presented their work within McDonald, but the Court that Dark Money Built accepted...the purpose-built Libertarian bullshit.

I invite you to discuss this, smarty pants. But (heh heh) you are the guy who says he read the Miller case, and came back repeatedly spamming bullshit straight out of his Libertarian rectum: gun rights for The People.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Seriatim Tom said:

You don't bring up idea that the People have the right to keep and bear arms.   It's like it doesn't appear anywhere and you aren't referencing it.  Do you hold your hand up to the screen covering the right side when you read it?

Serotonin Tom,

Not at all. I fully recognize both sides of the amendment.  The left side places a condition on the right side.  How could I possibly only recognize the the left side?  It's a condition.    If I need to say it, just for the record, my position is not that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." followed by anything. 

Like:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Donuts."

Or:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Cable Television."

But I'm not.  My position is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I fully recognize both the first and last part.  You, along with Publius, have apparently decided that the first part really doesn't matter.  Why do you suppose it was just left in there anyway?  Are there any other amendments that we can just ignore a part of because they are too hard?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2021 at 12:09 AM, Seriatim Tom said:

Yes, his broad strokes are in support of, and supported by, the distinguished historian Bellesiles.

Yo, Dogballs. I can flog you while using quality references from Mr. Bellesiles. :)

Hmmm. Mr. Bellesiles was quoted in court, before Armed in America. Before he became a bartender, he had collected some interesting observations, about jackass militias.

 

(Michael Bellesiles, Footnote 37 of The Second Amendment in Action)

During the period that the Articles were in effect, both George Washington and Henry Knox, who was to become the nation’s first Secretary of War in the Washington Administration, urged the creation of a standing national military force, to no avail.

(H. Richard Uviller & William G. Merkel,The Second Amendment in Context: The Case of the Vanishing Predicate)

Washington in particular felt that the need was acute; in 1783 he wrote a document entitled Sentiments On A Peace Establishment, in which he recommended establishing a national militia that would exist along with those maintained by the individual states.

Subsequently, he (George Wahington) wrote to John Adams in the wake of Shays’ Rebellion that because of the lack of a unified national military force,

         “[w]e are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!”

 (Letter from George Washington to James Madison, Nov. 5, 1786, in 29 THE WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1745-1799, at 51 (John Clement Fitzpatrick ed., 1931)

 (quoted fm Michael A. Bellesiles,  from The Second Amendment in Action, p76 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 61, 65 (2000)).

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

You, along with Publius, have apparently decided that the first part really doesn't matter. 

Heck no! That's the part that means that battlefield .22's and other weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" deserve the highest level of second amendment protection. Why would I want to abandon that protection?

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

Hmmm, Carl T Bogus did not manipulate The Federalist 29, you did.

His whole argument is that by the time 29 was written, everyone knew that standing armies were needed and militias were not.

Given that argument, his exclusion of this part is, well, lame and bogus:

Quote

This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Can't even take on the one sentence that directly addressed his claim. Has to instead pretend it isn't there, which only works on non-readers.

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

The record will show that Michael Bellesaisles had exactly three lousy footnotes

Hah!. There were dozens.

This is why non-readers are funny. The blind faith. That's also how such a faulty article won a Bancroft prize: the "peers" were probably halfwits like AJ Oliver who skimmed it, saw it was gungrabby, saw a bunch of footnotes, and assumed they were valid. They largely were not. But you'd have to actually read to know that.

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

  

15 hours ago, bstrdsonofbtl said:

Uh oh...

Quote

On the one hand, more states are allowing Americans to carry weapons in public without permits, and the gun-rights movement could be on the verge of a major Supreme Court victory. On the other, the National Rifle Association, which advocates on behalf of gun owners, faces an existential crisis that’s mostly due to the NRA’s own missteps.

As a political scientist who has studied gun politics and policy for over 30 years, I’m confident that there is no precedent for this contradictory situation. Moreover, there’s no reason to believe that the NRA’s problems will influence how the courts treat gun-rights cases.

Expand  Expand  

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/29/the-nra-could-be-winning-its-long-game-even-as-it-appears-to-be-in-dire-straits/print/

Not sure what this might have had to do with the Canadian confiscation of battlefield .22's and other such weapons of war. The case isn't about Canada at all.

Nor is it about this:

Quote

The Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, challenges a state law that requires authorities to exercise discretion when issuing concealed-carry pistol permits.

It doesn't actually require di$cretion, it allows it. The result has been that $pecial people who $peak to the right politicians get a permit, others don't.

And you know who I mean by "others," right?

Ignoring guns, if possible, for just a moment, how would you react to cops having "discretion" over who gets to exercise a protected right? We have a whole Black Lives Sometimes Matter movement about this, and on any other right, the answer comes quickly and easily: racist cops will discriminate!

Guess what? That answer hasn't changed, and won't. Not that it matters. Gungrabbiness uber alles!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First

Quote

 

...

Critically, and missed in the wider discourse around the case, Paul Clement, the attorney for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, opened the door to resolving the case by looking at the Court’s past First Amendment jurisprudence and applying it to gun rights. Contrary to what Clement argued, though, framing the guns case through a First Amendment lens reveals that the Court has drawn clear and workable lines that augur for common sense regulations. If the Supreme Court were to hold gun owners to the same standards it holds people seeking to take part in protected speech and assembly, New York’s current restrictions on concealed carry would actually survive in some modified form. If that doesn’t happen, then the Court’s conservatives would be elevating the status of the Second Amendment above First Amendment protections for the first time ever.

...

this does not mean that lawmakers are free to do as they please in restricting firearms in public. If the Second Amendment is going to be treated like the First Amendment, government restrictions on the carrying of firearms must be tailored to prevent discrimination and arbitrary decision-making. While local governments may require speakers to obtain permits to hold events in public forums, those permitting decisions must be based upon, “narrow, objective, and definite standards” and “related to the proper regulation of public places.” In other words, permits may not be denied for reasons unrelated to the enjoyment of the public forum. The clearest rule under these circumstances, is that the government’s decisions cannot be based upon the content of the speaker’s message.

...

Even when restrictions upon firearms are not discriminatory, but are for the legitimate purpose of protecting public safety, such laws must still be narrow, objective, and based upon clear standards. When it comes to speech, this requirement ensures that the permitting authority cannot use the permit as a means of censoring constitutionally protected speech. According to the Court, “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is unconstitutional…” The same should be true for firearms, and, arguably, this is where New York’s law fails. The requirement that applicants must show “proper cause” may be insufficiently clear and objective, allowing officials to exercise an unconstitutional amount of discretion.

...

 

Arguably? That's where it completely fails.

The NYC public defenders and black legal aid lawyers mentioned above summed it up this way:

Quote

In New York City, where we practice, the licensing structure allocates total and unilateral discretion to the NYPD to decide whose firearm possession is lawful and whose is a “violent felony.” It charges hefty fees, disproportionately burdening indigent people. And it results in a wildly disparate allocation of licenses, unsurprisingly favoring people who are associated with the police. No part of this gatekeeping structure is consonant with a fundamental constitutional right.

But I guess I should be, and am, glad that he's willing to acknowledge that some aspect of gun control might actually go too far. As for his overall argument of treating the amendments of the bill of rights in similar ways, I'm a long time fan of that. And Favre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to have finally noticed minority rights over at Slate.

A Criminal Justice Reformer’s Case for Looser Gun Laws

Quote

 

...

I wonder if you think about the strange bedfellows especially in this Supreme Court case, where there was an amicus brief filed by Bronx Defenders and others talking about their clients and how they are denied access to guns that they want, but they’re teaming up with the kinds of litigants who otherwise might not have their best interests at heart. How do you think about that? Do you worry that the Black and brown people who agree with this argument that’s being made at the Supreme Court are being used?

No. I don’t worry about that. I worry about the safety of my communities. I worry about the people that I represent, whose lives are being derailed by this scheme. I worry about the people who are victims and the families who are victims of gun violence.

The strange bedfellows argument? It’s a complicated issue. I think that often we try to look at issues with red and blue glasses and we try to figure out what side is the conservative side and what side is the liberal side and where do you fit. But there are some issues that are so complicated that it’s not. And while I acknowledge that there are going to be people who hold different political views than me that may be on the same side of our fellow public defenders, I believe that we’re on the right side of this. And if there are other people that choose to be on that side as well, then that’s what they’ve chosen to believe.

...

 

 

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

Posted  this article in the authoritarian chicken thread, but this bit is relevant here.
 

Quote

 

...

The Supreme Court is dominated by a conservative majority that sits to the right of Rambo when it comes to expanding gun rights — and indeed appears poised to kill off longstanding and effective blue-state gun laws.

...

 

They're effective all right. Oddly, none of the people who are soooo very concerned with racial justice want to examine what they're effective at doing.

We are public defenders. New York’s gun laws eviscerate our clients’ Second Amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...