Jump to content

2nd Amendment: In the home only?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, bpm57 said:
10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

P 19 Ninth District's Peruta Reply Brief

I don't know where to even look for such a document, Joe.

Your suffering is acute, I see. Here's the deal. The material was so good, I must have filed it on the fly (while not reading immaterial court cases) without snatching the link or properly labeling the content. My bad, but my concern is that you ignored the great material, and went in to DeadEye Dick distractions. The content, which is the heart of the Peruta II outcome, bears repeating, see thread title.

Dude, I know how to make all this right. You will be at peace tomorrow, I am certain of it.

Quote

Moreover, petitioners’ suggestion that the challenged legal regimes “cannot possibly withstand constitutional scrutiny” if the Second Amendment applies outside the home (Pet. 15) misunderstands this Court’s precedents. The Court has made clear that even where the Amendment applies, it does not confer a right to “carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626. 

A conclusion or assumption that the Second Amendment applies outside the home begins, rather than ends, the inquiry into the constitutionality of a particular regulatory framework.

Source: unknown.

 

  • Downvote 1
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

On 4/3/2018 at 2:19 PM, bpm57 said:
On 4/3/2018 at 6:58 AM, jocal505 said:

MOST TOM POSTS CONTAIN dogballs NONSENSE. I DON'T READ THOSE, JUST BECAUSE.

Because you find it impossible to admit that other states are looking to join NJ in banning the (well known assault weapon) Marlin Model 60?

No, because I try to avoid reading nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2018 at 2:19 PM, bpm57 said:
On 4/3/2018 at 7:18 AM, jocal505 said:

And I pulled out the problems of The Standard Model

You mean you did massive cut-n-pastes of other peoples work. Try to be a little honest.

Hell's bells, I plead guilty. And I am chuckling all day about you guys. 

One day, during my teens, I read me some honest Howard Hughes stuff, as told by himself. Basicaly, he found himself in a rich family, with a well-run, well-capitalized firm benefitting from a well drilling drill bit patent. The men his father hired were sharper than Howard. He wasn't intimidated, he was just out-classed, and just honest. He grasped that he didn't have to out-think them, or out-brain them within their own fields. He needed to gain from their best in those fields, respectively. To get free, he only needed to be a listener, to organize the work of men who were strong in their fields.

 

Overall, the subject of gun violence has been good to me on PA, a blessing, because of what Howard Hughes taught me. Bpm, PLEASE consider my dick to be the dinkiest one in the room, and please assume I am the dimmest bulb in the house, as well. Please assume that my boats did not match the crafts of others around here, and assume the same about my education. All I need to do is select the focus of a bit of reading, and see what happens...

Tom fucking Ray, aka @Uncooperative Tom , could have been right about the SAF, for all I knew, when our discussions started in 2012. And the discussions aren't over, granted.  But at this point, I have found scholars who make Tom's tenets and your efforts look feeble, if not embarrassing. 

I have chosen the word "embarrassing" carefully, and proudly. Not a man jack among you can defend (or reject) The Standard Model. Interesting.

 

 

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

That would be pretty much the way I feel about whites with guns, too, but for different reasons. You could easily rise above the local race-baiting, my friend

No, its actually NOT the way you feel about whites with guns.  In your own words, blacks are more short-sighted, immature, more volatile and more deadly than whites:

Quote

"The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites. -- @jocal505 (Political Anarchy, May 4th, 2015)

As I previously said, you're a racist mutherfucker!

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

My bad, but my concern is that you ignored the great material, and went in to DeadEye Dick distractions. The content, which is the heart of the Peruta II outcome, bears repeating, see thread title.

I cannot seem to find any case referred to as "Peruta II", Joe. That is not a distraction, it bears directly on the ability of anyone to read your source for themselves.

Remember when you claimed this?

"I go straight up the middle with no games" Well, if you are going to lie, lie big, right Joe?

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

A conclusion or assumption that the Second Amendment applies outside the home begins, rather than ends, the inquiry into the constitutionality of a particular regulatory framework.

You didn't post their historical analysis? Or did they skip doing that?

14 hours ago, jocal505 said:

No, because I try to avoid reading nonsense

Slow day, Joe? Or are you trying to reply to every message you were ever quoted in and you are back to April?

13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Hell's bells, I plead guilty. And I am chuckling all day about you guys. 

I see, you are clearly just working backwards and are in the beginning of April.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 5:52 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

More recent history, from the 9th circuit this summer:

Quote

In  short,  the  text  of  the  Amendment,  as  interpreted  by Heller and McDonald,  points  toward  the conclusion  that  “bear”  implies  a  right  to  carry  firearms  publicly  for  self-defense.

And non-readers still are unaware and clinging to the ridiculous idea that we had indoor militias. As Eva Dent.

17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

"Enumerated rights" are contained to the home, as we speak.

 

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

And non-readers still are unaware and clinging to the ridiculous idea that we had indoor militias.

All we have to do is wait a year or two, maybe someone will write an article for some random law journal and then Joe will be happy to talk about it. Well, only if he agrees with the article.

I prefer to be optimistic and think that Joe is reading through Palmer filings looking for the "win". Because "everyone" knows that the "winner" in district court is the one that brings the case to the court of appeals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/9/2018 at 5:52 AM, dogballs Tom said:

More recent history, from the 9th circuit this summer:

Quote

In  short,  the  text  of  the  Amendment,  as  interpreted  by Heller and McDonald,  points  toward  the conclusion  that  “bear”  implies  a  right  to  carry  firearms  publicly  for  self-defense.

 

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?

Quote

Although Peruta reserved  the  question  whether  the  Second  Amendment protects a right to open carry, see id. at 942, its reasoning leads inexorably to the conclusion that, at minimum, States have broad latitude to regulate the open carry of firearms in public.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Assuming arguendo that the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home,2 see

  • --Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 431 (3d Cir. 2013) (declining “to definitively declare that the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home”);
  • --Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (same);
  • --Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 876 (4th Cir. 2013) (same);
  • --Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (same),

Are you still trying this stupid argument?

It failed in the 9th!

Quote

In  short,  the  text  of  the  Amendment,  as  interpreted  by Heller and McDonald,  points  toward  the conclusion  that  “bear”  implies  a  right  to  carry  firearms  publicly  for  self-defense.

 

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

ARMED self defense outside the home may be legal, but is also sketchy. The best and only justification is Heller, which confined guns to the home, but teased with the word "confrontation" 4X. The legal baseline for armed interactions in public is not what you think. You need to dispute this 21 pages of Darrel Miller with a good source, or STFU. 

Self-Defense, Defense of Others, and the State 


Your failure to keep up with what has happened out in the 9th circuit doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it still takes you years to grasp simple facts, like it took years of research before you were able to correctly distinguish between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

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


Your failure to keep up with what has happened out in the 9th circuit doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it still takes you years to grasp simple facts, like it took years of research before you were able to correctly distinguish between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

Ths is a non-response

The 9th circuit activity, in the Marshall Islands and in Hawaii, is not groundbreaking, or even sound, and has conflicts in the ninth. And my my,  McDonald is a rich source of angry constitutional scholars and historians.

As for Miller, can you state the underlying premise, after all your sustained disinformation on Political Anarchy? Miller protected the gun rights of fighting age males... but Scalia pulled the rug out from under all that.

On 9/24/2018 at 4:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

In  short,  the  text  of  the  Amendment,  as  interpreted  by Heller and McDonald,  points  toward  the conclusion  that  “bear”  implies  a  right  to  carry  firearms  publicly  for  self-defense.

What a bullshitter. What a liar. You know better that that judge if you read Political Anarchy.

You have counting skills, and a computer, so just isolate the term "bear arms" in the documents in the days of the founding fathers. An academic named Kozuskanich did that, and discovered that 96% or 97% of the uses were military. Heller was based on faux scholarship, lad.

Quote

Merkel, the Hubris of Heller

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

 

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

Are you still trying this stupid argument?

It failed in the 9th!

 

"The 9th" simply quoted the sketchy shit in Heller, the stuff you can't defend, identify with, or discuss. This is a display of empty posing.

Heller chose to define "bear arms" based on the writings of Clayton Cramer, the Libertarian. Did you read his work?

Quote

What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment?

19pgs  Clayton E. CramerCollege if Western Idaho, Randy Weaver alert

 

Barnett lists other similar usages of the Framing generation in his 2004

article, “Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in

an Organized Militia?”32

In a discussion of the history of Bologna in A Defence of the

Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, John Adams

describes how “these new magistrates in Bologna were obliged to adopt”

various measures:

In order to purge the city of its many popular disorders, they were obliged to

forbid a great number of persons, under grievous penalties, to enter the palace: nor

was it permitted them to go about the city, nor to bear arms.

                                                                                                      John Adams  see footnote 33

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255997364_What_Did_Bear_Arms_Mean_in_the_Second_Amendment

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 4:02 AM, dogballs 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!

The Hawaii case is a good read. but the plea faces an uphill journey. This Hawaii bit is a repeat of Peruta l, AGAINST THE VERY SAME JUDGE, and accurate history is center stage IMO..

Quote

The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 10/8/2018 at 11:37 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Your failure to keep up with what has happened out in the 9th circuit doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it still takes you years to grasp simple facts, like it took years of research before you were able to correctly distinguish between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

Ths is a non-response

The 9th circuit activity, in the Marshall Islands and in Hawaii, is not groundbreaking, or even sound, and has conflicts in the ninth. And my my,  McDonald is a rich source of angry constitutional scholars and historians.

You DO realize that Hawaii is a US STATE, right?  And a ruling striking down a state law affects ALL the rest of the other 56 states.  And the 9th is THE most liberal on the US Court of Appeals, so for them to reach this decision is a pretty fucking big deal.

Quote

 

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, finding that Hawaii overstepped its authority to regulate firearms possession outside the home.  

The ruling by a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, makes the San Francisco-based court the sixth U.S. circuit court to interpret the Second Amendment that way and could set the issue on a path toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not taken up a major gun rights case since 2010.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/u-s-appeals-court-upholds-right-to-carry-gun-in-public-idUSKBN1KE28C

6 other circuit courts have ruled similarly.  This will likely go to the SCOTUS sooner rather than later.  Hmmmm, I wonder how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will rule???

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

You have counting skills, and a computer, so just isolate the term "bear arms" in the documents in the days of the founding fathers. An academic named Kozuskanich did that, and discovered that 96% or 97% of the uses were military.

And 0% of the uses referenced indoor military activity.

Because we didn't have indoor militias. Ever.

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

(Quoting Tom's Hawaii case) The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.

Jeffie and Tom, yeah, Hawaii is the right location for this dustup. They haven;t granted an everyday gun permit in twenty years.

But Jeff, I want we need  an adjustment, among adults. We find here, once again, that outdoor gun rights are TBD, When a large, gracious man admits his mistakes, the conversation can move forward, among associates.

Quote

  On 5/14/2017 at 8:12 AM, jocal505 said:

You are a leading intellectual type locally, I get that.  While I am a mere dumbass, I get that too. This dumbass had to school you on outdoor gun rights. Pooplius was quoted at my side.

Outdoor gun rights are very iffy. They are TBD. Heller excludes them and you didn't know that. Hmm.

Jeffie Posted May 14 

No joey dear, you got skooled.  Heller didn't address outdoor rights because that was never a question put before the court.  And you didn't know that.  Hmmmm

And outdoor gun rights are not TBD, they are right there for all to see in the text of the 2A itself.  Go read it for once.  You'll see.  

 

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

And Jocal's head explodes!  

Ka-BOOM!

Quite the contrary. My brain absolutely purrs along on John Donohue.

You are quoting a hard worker, and a consistent person. Trust me, he is YOUR BIGGEST ENEMY.

You are a dummy. So is Tom. Donohue is quoted 85 times in the Hawaii case, relating the empirically proven danger of concealed carry.

In 2004, the NRC had to meet to decide the truth of the claim (and book) "More Guns, Less Crime." 17 of 18 researchers tossed Lott's research, leaving their logic over 300 pages of reports, and then they blasted the dissenter, intelligently. But at that time the NRC could not definitively state that more guns bring more crime. AND ON POLIICAL ANARCHY, TOM RAY PRESENTED ONLY THE NEUTRALITY OF THAT CONCLUSION.

Enter John Donohue. Donohue was in those meetings, and went back to work.Following the rash of new CCP states,  Donohue formally presented numbers to the NRC and NAS which concluded that right to carry laws were increasing crime. Then he expanded the study a second time, to cover another decade, and confirmed the phenomena. 

Need a summary? Hmmm, we have a double-digit problem with RTC.

  • Donohue I,  pub 2012, , with Aneja, Zhang, RTC '77-2006, NRC work extended 6yrs, using Lott's econometrics
  • Donohue II, with Aneja, pub. 2012, RTC NRC work extended  '77 to 2010, using four models, including Lott's
Quote

Donohue in 2017

Examining decades of crime data, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law.

The working paper, released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, challenges the effectiveness of RTC laws and could have a significant impact on pending litigation between the National Rifle Association and the state of California.

This work is used in court, and is now flies unchallenged. Things have changed since we began this argument, because of men like Donohue.

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

And 0% of the uses referenced indoor military activity.

Because we didn't have indoor militias. Ever.

Hancock was a Boston selectman, which granted him an outdoor militia, which could not shoot their guns in Boston, unless mustered. He was a co-operative, constitutional type, and respectfully followed the laws of the day. 

I suggest that the un-cooperatives in his outfit peeled the potatoes. 

Quote

Take for instance James Davis‘s 1774 treatise, entitled The Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, which stated the Statute stood for the premise that "unusual and offensive Weapons" were prohibited "among the great Concourse of the People."91 

An Act to Prevent the Firing of Guns Laden with Shot or Ball in the Town of Boston, reprinted in Boston Weekly News-Letter, Sept. 18, 1746, at 2.

While there is room for debate as to what weapons would have qualified as "dangerous," "unusual," or "offensive," there is substantiated evidence to suggest that loaded firearms and pistols qualified in populated areas.  This is supported by eighteenth century ordinances in Boston and Newburyport.  As early as 1746 Boston made it unlawful for any person to "discharge any Gun or Pistol charged with Shot or Ball in town," including "any Part of the Harbour between the Castle of said Town[.]"92 

This ordinance was reaffirmed in 1768 by the Boston Selectmen, which included John Hancock.93  The ordinance was required because "divers of the Inhabitants have been lately surprized and endangered by the firing of Muskets charged with Shot or Ball on the Neck, Common, and other Parts of the Town[.]"94  Exceptions in both ordinances were given to militia during times of muster.95  However, there were no exceptions for personal self-defense. 

 

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

My cite is reading the case stuff. I read accusations that the Hawaii Judge did not even read Peruta II.

 

Whatever, boss. Like this judge, you need to grasp (historically) why Scott Peruta's outdoor gun fantasy was canned, by the full Ninth.

This idiot judge is quoting the "non-exhaustive" historical conclusions of Heller, which oozed into McD.  This guy is quoting "bear arms" with Clayton Cramer Caribou Barbie as a source. HIs Peruta I was a joke. It failed. 

Peruta I was a classic, relying on the Tom Palmer/Judge Scullin house of cards. Peruta I folded. It is quoted now for how wrong it was, and Young vs Hawaii is a repeat, a dud:  here you have a nice ricochet off a misfire, dude.  

Unless you or @.22 Tomcan quote something new here.


Copy/pasting articles about cases by gungrabby scholars is copy/pasting "case stuff" but it's not reading cases, something you don't do.
 

I already did quote something new here.

On 9/9/2018 at 5:52 AM, dogballs Tom said:

More recent history, from the 9th circuit this summer:

Quote

In  short,  the  text  of  the  Amendment,  as  interpreted  by Heller and McDonald,  points  toward  the conclusion  that  “bear”  implies  a  right  to  carry  firearms  publicly  for  self-defense.

 

 

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


Copy/pasting articles about cases by gungrabby scholars is copy/pasting "case stuff" but it's not reading cases, something you don't do.
 

I already did quote something new here.

 

Come on. Quoting inadequate history, again, is not new.

You could try a rick roll to Dred Scott, like yesterday. I find that you are a poser, that you are not a worthy competitor.

On the water you would be in the B fleet, happy as could be, in a beefer boat, back of the fleet, wearing slippers.


 

Standard Model urinal.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 4:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Possibly because Peruta ignores open carry?

Make up your mind.

As stated in the decisions, the plaintiffs, your side, came in, guns blazing,  targeting concealed carry issues. The right to open carry, if any, was stated as a separate issue for the SC.

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

Copy/pasting articles about cases by gungrabby scholars is copy/pasting "case stuff" but it's not reading cases, something you don't do.

I demonstrated having read it a month ago. It is just a recycle of Peruta I...as was called out as such within your link. It was so inconsequential it drew no reaction, homework, notes, or file from me. It had amusing content: an accusation that the en banc decision had gone unread by some cowboy judge out in the Pacific. Probably the same one that blessed the open carry of AW's in the Marianas Islands...where my pappy poured beaucoup concrete.

 

But you and DeadEye Dick are quite impressed with it. So show us the best bits of Young vs, Hawaii, the stuff I missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 2:54 PM, bpm57 said:

I cannot seem to find any case referred to as "Peruta II", Joe.

We have three loud gun voices on our threads now, and each is posing away. This is the guy who wants me to read certain court cases... and while braying, he hasn''t looked very hard at Young vs. Hawaii.

DeadEye Dick was looking at his shoes.

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

On the water you would be in the B fleet, happy as could be, in a beefer boat, back of the fleet, wearing slippers.

Ah, so you've heard about the Sun Cat National Championships?

They're Croc's, not slippers. And I did win until a better sailor with a bigger sail showed up.

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

Ah, so you've heard about the Sun Cat National Championships?

They're Croc's, not slippers. And I did win until a better sailor with a bigger sail showed up.

Did you race by Tom Ray's values, or by Paul Elvstrom's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 5:46 AM, bpm57 said:
On 9/9/2018 at 3:17 AM, jocal505 said:

97% of the actual uses of the words "bear arms" were military during Colonial times.

Joe, 97% still isn't all.

3% isn't very definitive, is it? It would be a snow job, a farce, to say that 3% of the uses of "bear arms" defines the use of the term.

Your Hawaii case is unimpressive. 

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

 

Oh look, they guy who needs the word "vacated" explained to him is now going back a month to do gotchas.

You go, Joe. Don't forget the masturbatory fantasy you wrote about "not going to the gutter"

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

3% isn't very definitive, is it? It would be a snow job, a farce, to say that 3% of the uses of "bear arms" defines the use of the term.

I realize things have to be spelled out for you, Joe, but it isn't very hard to understand: "most" does not mean "all"

 

 

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

Make up your mind.

As stated in the decisions, the plaintiffs, your side, came in, guns blazing,  targeting concealed carry issues. The right to open carry, if any, was stated as a separate issue for the SC.

 

"But the en banc panel’s transparent attempt
to narrow the case beyond recognition by conflating
the claims brought and the relief sought cannot
change the reality that this case is and always has
been about whether petitioners have any right to
carry handguns outside the home for self-defense,
whether openly or concealed. By concluding that the
Sheriff may close off the only legal outlet for
ordinary, law-abiding individuals to carry a handgun
under California law, the court sanctioned the
continued enforcement of a regime that deprives
petitioners of the constitutional right that they
initiated this litigation to vindicate."

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Peruta-Cert-Reply.pdf

 

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

deprives petitioners of the constitutional right that they initiated this litigation to vindicate."

"constitutional right" is not an absolute. I guess there's been no "vindication" so far, because at this time, Scott Peruta goes gunless if outdoors in San Diego.

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

realize things have to be spelled out for you, Joe, but it isn't very hard to understand: "most" does not mean "all"

That's nice, but here's what we have here.

To re-conclude this, we find that, in colonial times, 97% of the uses of "bear arms" held a military reference. Therefore there's no need to apply the original idea from 1794 to personal guns on the streets today.

Because the original meaning (what the founding fathers intended) does matter.

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

Oh look, they guy who needs the word "vacated" explained to him is now going back a month to do gotchas.

You go, Joe. Don't forget the masturbatory fantasy you wrote about "not going to the gutter"

Look, you spent the month demonstrating that you haven't read to page 10 of the case you were mouthing off about. 

It turns out I had felt like reading it, read much of it, and forgot where  the term Peruta I sprang up.

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

To re-conclude this, we find that, in colonial times, 97% of the uses of "bear arms" held a military reference.

Feel free to ask somebody familiar with math if 97% = all, Joe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2018 at 2:22 PM, bpm57 said:

Feel free to ask somebody familiar with math if 97% = all, Joe.

What is your problem? You want "bear arms" to apply to everyday guys, but the term was military. You are making shit up, standing on a foundation of nonsense.

Your butt hurts at the same time that most does not equal all. It seems like an holding pattern for you...while others read away about pertinent stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Why would a Supreme Court judge interpret things that way? I don't see any military language at all.

Just language saying that if blacks were considered The People, they could keep and carry arms wherever they went.

This was considered a huge problem at the time because some people thought that blacks are too immature and volatile to be considered people with gun rights.

That kind of thinking has mostly gone away.

On 5/4/2015 at 2:35 PM, jocal505 said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

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

Why would a Supreme Court judge interpret things that way? I don't see any military language at all.

Just language saying that if blacks were considered The People, they could keep and carry arms wherever they went.

This was considered a huge problem at the time because some people thought that blacks are too immature and volatile to be considered people with gun rights.

That kind of thinking has mostly gone away.

 

Speaking of holding patterns, this is your second rickroll to ahem Judge Taney. For sport.

 

Thank you for another opportunity to expose a special human on Political Anarchy. His name was MLK, and he grasped that violence itself is a dead end. He came to understand, and was able to articulate, the nature of violence. His death was my high school graduation present, it left me feeling empty inside.

I can't get enough of the race-baiting you redneck fool. 

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

What is your problem? You want "bear arms" to apply to everyday guys, but the term was military.

Joe, we know that the english language seems to confuse you, but clearly what you claim wasn't the case. If it was, then it would be 100%.

Not to mention that it is cute that you believe that any review done over 200 years later is going to cover every colonial broadsheet printed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

1) Romaine lettuce, last time I checked, still is not a constitutionally enumerated right and

Here's the actual status of this right: basically, you need to stay in your lodging, while not shooting out of it at bad guys. Peruta II is my case law.


1. I didn't say that. Joe screwed up the quotes again.

2. Joe can't get current case law right either, not being a reader of cases.

On 7/24/2018 at 10:36 PM, dogballs Tom said:

9th Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Applies In Public

It may take a few more years or decades, but the nonsense that we had indoor militias is just that: nonsense. It won't prevail in the end.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2018 at 2:34 PM, bpm57 said:

Not to mention that it is cute that you believe that any review done over 200 years later is going to cover every colonial broadsheet printed.

Present the nifty and vaporous "broadsheets."

Patrick J Charles has demonstrated that he read every written law. He said the military emphasis of bear arms, and of arms rights, was consistent and thorough. He definitely followed the pamphleteers, and wants to know why they didn't squawk about the colonists' guns being beaten upon, and broken up, while their powder was being confiscated, circa 1774.

 

 

On 10/21/2018 at 2:34 PM, bpm57 said:

Joe, we know that the english language seems to confuse you, but clearly what you claim wasn't the case. If it was, then it would be 100%.

Your reference to the 3% civilian usage kinda sinks your craft.

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


1. I didn't say that. Joe screwed up the quotes again. 

2. Joe can't get current case law right either, not being a reader of cases.

You must need a refresher, on the gems now in play. May I present Peruta II.

Quote

The Peruta court addressed the issue of "whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has 2 a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1147.

 

As a preliminary matter, the court noted that "California generally prohibits the open or concealed carriage of a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public locations." Id.(citations and footnote omitted). However, an individual could apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the city or county in which he worked or resided. See id. at 1148 (citations  omitted).

To obtain such a license, however, an applicant had to meet several requirements,including a demonstration of good moral character, completion of a specified training course, and establishing good cause. See id. (citations omitted). The plaintiff challenged San Diego County's procedures for obtaining a concealed-carry license, in particular its definition of the term "good cause." See id.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your side in the aftermath, here it is. The writer could wind up on the SC.

Quote

The Paul Clement Footnotes, after Peruta II

1 The State tries to escape that conclusion by claiming that any “open carry” right may still be accommodated by concealed carry. It is far from clear that the Ninth Circuit shares that view, but even if it does, the court’s decision still needlessly forces broadside facial challenges to open-carry restrictions.

 

2 The State suggests that the Ninth Circuit is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the State’s open-carry laws in Nichols v. Brown, No. 14-55873. StateBIO15 n.10. Notably, the State has never until now suggested that this pro se case, which is littered with procedural irregularities and other deficiencies, is an appropriate vehicle for resolution of such a weighty constitutional issue.

At the time of the complaint the good cause requirement was set out in California Penal Code section 12050. That provision has since been renumbered as section 26150. See generally Cal. Penal Code §§ 16000-16025 (explaining recodification).

 3 The district court reasoned in part that, as “a practical matter, should the need for self-defense arise,” state law did not “restrict[] the open carry of unloaded firearms and ammunition ready for instant loading.” Pet. App. 216. While this case was on appeal, state law was amended to further restrict unloaded open carry. See Cal. Penal Code § 26350(a); see also Pet. App. 63-64, 66-67 (Callahan, J., dissenting); id. at 84-86 (N.R. Smith, J., dissenting).

6 The Seventh Circuit struck down an Illinois public carry statute in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Noting that Illinois was “the only state” with “a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home,” id. at 940, it distinguished laws that require “a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public” and that “place[] the burden on the applicant to show that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons,” id. at 941—that is, laws like those in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California.

 7 See Drake, No. 13-827 (cert. denied May 5, 2014); Woollard, No. 13-42 (cert. denied Oct. 15,

8 Some of the counsel for petitioners in this case have also filed a new case in which they argue that California’s “regulatory scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it prevents [the plaintiffs] from carrying either openly or concealed.” Flanagan v. Harris, C.D. Cal. No. 16-cv-6164, Dkt. No. 31 at 1 (emphasis in original). The plaintiffs in that case acknowledge that “the en banc decision in Peruta expressly reserved that question[.]” Ibid.

9 The State made clear in its briefing below that the remedy petitioners sought—forced issuance of concealed-carry permits—would have been inappropriate even if the court had construed petitioners’ claims broadly and concluded that California’s overall regulation of public carry was unduly restrictive. See CA9 Dkt. No. 261-1 at 9 n.2. The proper remedy would instead have been to clarify the law and then remand to allow the state legislature to decide how to comply with the constitutional limitations identified by the court. Ibid. (citing Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d at 942.) 10 A case making this precise claim—that the Second Amendment requires the State to allow an individual to carry openly, whether or not it would allow concealed-carry—is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Nichols v. Harris, CA9 No. 14-55873 (currently being briefed on the merits).

 

 

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

Patrick J Charles has demonstrated that he read every written law.

We all know you love the guy, Joe. But we were not talking about him.

 

" 97% of the actual uses of the words "bear arms" were military during Colonial times. "

If your math is still failing, Joe, 97% still isn't all - no matter what kind of temper tantrum you throw.

But since you have convinced yourself of the existence of an indoor militia that is only allowed 1 firearm, I can't wait to read about your lawsuit that will upend 2A jurisprudence in the US.

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

If your math is still failing, Joe, 97% still isn't all - no matter what kind of temper tantrum you throw.

What is with your obsession that "most does not equal all." Where did I say it did? Why is this important to you?

 

Your broad position is that the term "bear arms" assumes, and okays, civilians carrying guns. In the days of the FF, that term was overwhelmingly (97%) military. Period.

You need to accept that because the courts will, at some future point, since the scholarship rests here.

Quote

Saul Cornell (on Kozuskanich's computerized documentation of "Bear Arms")

8 Compare the impressionistic use of sources in Clayton E. Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson,66 GEO. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 511 cited by Scalia, with the systematic investigation of all of the uses of this term in published sources presented in Nathan Kozuskanich, Originalism, History, and the Second Amendment: What Did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders? 10 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 413.

 A careful scan of the former reveals that much of its evidence is not drawn from the Founding Era, but from later periods and English sources. Interestingly, the Kozuskanich article was cited by the District of Columbia in its reply brief, but Scalia ignored its clear evidence of the dominant usage of the term "bear arms" in the Founding era. Reply Brief for Petitioners at *7, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) (No. 07-290).

 9 Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2807.

"Broadsheets," you poser? That is the area where all means all. Below we find is the scholar who used a computer to determine the 97% military use of this term.

Quote

Kozuskanich,  PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: A LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE

https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume10/issue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(2008).pdf

Given the daunting military task facing the American patriots in the wake of the Declaration of Independence, it is no surprise that every mention of bearing arms in the newspapers from 1777 to 1784 was made in that context. As states mustered militias and the Continental Army managed to survive year after year, "bearing arms" was certainly understood as being exclusively military in nature.

Does every mean every? 

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

Your broad position is that the term "bear arms" assumes, and okays, civilians carrying guns.

In the words of a Supreme Court Justice, the rights of citizens include:

Quote

the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Inexplicable, huh, Joe? Time to attack me for bringing it up.

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

In the words of a Supreme Court Justice, the rights of citizens include:

Inexplicable, huh, Joe? Time to attack me for bringing it up.

You are baiting an attack, stuck in yesteryear.

Sorry Tom. You and Judge Taney have little to offer me. I can't afford to dwell at your level too much.

DRED, MLK'S PERMIT.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, benwynn said:

But the 2nd is special in this regard. The NRA has it on the wall of their HQ, with the first part.mysteriously missing.  It always is when someone is touting it.  Always. 


Not always. I reference it frequently when I want to make fun of the TeamD/gungrabby idea that we had indoor militias.

We did not.

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


Not always. I reference it frequently when I want to make fun of the TeamD/gungrabby idea that we had indoor militias.

We did not.

Not so fast, propaganda boi. The Peruta result allows you to march up and down the hallway, while armed. Don't try it in the driveway.

Here are four recent cases which refused to allow outdoor gunz.

Quote

--Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 431 (3d Cir. 2013) (declining “to definitively declare that the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends beyond the home”);

--Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (same);

--Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 876 (4th Cir. 2013) (same);

--Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (same),

And consider this breakdown of the above, from Wrenn.

Quote

Judge Henderson (item: p32 of Wrenn Decision, the opening of the dissent)

My colleagues attempt to minimize the Supreme Court’s declarations by insisting that the relevant history speaks with “one voice on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.” Maj. Op. 12-13 p32. But their view of history is with blinders on as it is contradicted by our sister circuits’ extensive review of the same historical  record.

 

 Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 91

(“History and tradition do not speak with one voice here. What history demonstrates is that states often disagreed as to the scope of the right to bear arms, whether the right was embodied in a state constitution or the Second Amendment.”);

Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 96 (alteration in original)

(“The historical prevalence of the regulation of firearms in public demonstrates that while the Second Amendment’s core concerns are strongest inside hearth and home, states have long recognized a countervailing and competing set of concerns with regard to handgun ownership and use in public.”).

 

Drake, 724 F.3d at 431 (same);

Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 470-71

 (“[A]s we move outside the home, firearm rights have always been more limited, because public safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.”);

cf. Peruta, 824 F.3d at 939

(in U.S. history, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public”).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 9:52 AM, dogballs Tom said:

2. Joe can't get current case law right either, not being a reader of cases.

On 7/24/2018 at 10:36 PM, dogballs Tom said:

9th Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Applies In Public

It may take a few more years or decades, but the nonsense that we had indoor militias is just that: nonsense. It won't prevail in the end.

 

This situation is unlikely to end as Joe is unlikely to begin reading cases and the propaganda sources he consults don't wish to talk about the ones they lose.

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

This situation is unlikely to end as Joe is unlikely to begin reading cases and the propaganda sources he consults don't wish to talk about the ones they lose.

HAIL MARY TIME The Marianas angle is your most wonderful crusher, the best ever, since Big Temporary.

Don't be a wanker. Debate the legal baseline some day.

 

Yes, this topic of indoor militias is nonsense, and this nonsense was created and introduced by Tom Ray,

Not an impressive showing, mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 10:38 AM, benwynn said:
On 12/10/2018 at 6:01 AM, dogballs Tom said:

An excuse for what?

Our shared opposition to TeamD gun bans, perhaps?

Yes. Exactly.

^^^ Feel free to copy this response into whatever thread you feel appropriate.


Roger that. I don't think this one is really appropriate but it is funny to me. Indoor militias are a riot, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2013 at 6:43 PM, benwynn said:

 

May I suggest an ammendment that has the word "Regulated" in it?

 

Shit. I'm too late again.

Sounds like something that would only apply indoors, doesn't it? Especially when you get to the next word!

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

Sounds like something that would only apply indoors, doesn't it? Especially when you get to the next word!

The word "regulated" APPLY?  Now that IS funny.  Who would think that a word in an amendment would apply. HA! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, benwynn said:

The word "regulated" APPLY?  Now that IS funny.  Who would think that a word in an amendment would apply. HA! 

If that's funny, you must be doubled up laughing at the indoor militias that grabbers think we had.

After all, words in lots of amendments apply in ways that make sense. Indoor militias just don't and that's funny.

It won't stop people who want to restrict our rights from pursuing that lie in courts where it might not be so funny, but at least we can laugh at their ridiculous lies as they pursue the gun bans you and I oppose.

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

at least we can laugh at their ridiculous lies as they pursue the gun bans you and I oppose.

Quote

 you must be doubled up laughing at the indoor militias that grabbers think we had.

Indoor militias is the hot topic, eh?

I find no worthy content under your name these days.  We'll see if silliness and nonsense, as approaches to gun violence, work. 

BTW, Butina's NRA involvement gets disclosed today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gun deaths in US reach highest level in nearly 40 years, CDC data reveal

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/

Excerpt -

Nearly 40,000 people in the United States died by guns last year, marking the highest number of gun deaths in decades, according to a new analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WONDER database.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 11:14 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

How many of those were Self-Murder?

2017

Total gun deaths 39,773

 Suicides                23,854

 Homicides           15,919

 

Again, the stable homicide figure for about eight years was 11,500. (For the suicide figure, see the fine suicide cheerleaders.)

Quote

As with gun homicides, the CDC recorded drastically different gun-related suicide rates in various areas of the country, ranging from 1.6 to 13.5 for every 100,000 people. The New York metropolitan area had the lowest gun suicide rate, while the Oklahoma City area had the highest.

 

 

Badgeless Boy, Suicide Cheerleader.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one gun is allowed into a home and it only is capable of firing one round, that's a suicide risk.

The only SOLution: no guns in any homes capable of even one round.

This is what people who use suicide stats to call for gun control must want, if they want it to be effective instead of just to punish people for owning evil guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2018 at 3:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:

If one gun is allowed into a home and it only is capable of firing one round, that's a suicide risk.

The only SOLution: no guns in any homes capable of even one round.

This is what people who use suicide stats to call for gun control must want, if they want it to be effective instead of just to punish people for owning evil guns.

seems like imagining, Tom

 

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

That's just wrong Tom, we need to limit hi cap mags and autoloading battlefield rifles to prevent suicide.  You just never know how many times they might pull the trigger before they successfully self-murder.  

Wanker content.^^^. But welcome back.

 

The overall suicide rate increased after the 2008 financial collapse. But the CDC comments that the rate never decreased with the recovery, as one might expect.

Have intelligent comment? 

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

Wanker content.^^^. But welcome back.

 

The overall suicide rate increased after the 2008 financial collapse. But the CDC comments that the rate never decreased with the recovery, as one might expect.

Have intelligent comment? 

Here’s an intelligent comment.  What’s your major malfunction numbnuts? Dredging up 3 grunthreads that if no one responded to nutters like dog balls and Short Jeff would die on the vine.  You consistently act as an immature troll and other than stalking those two contribute nothing to the conversation.

SAD!

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

Here’s an intelligent comment.  What’s your major malfunction numbnuts? Dredging up 3 grunthreads that if no one responded to nutters like dog balls and Short Jeff would die on the vine.  You consistently act as an immature troll and other than stalking those two contribute nothing to the conversation.

SAD!

This is a current, hot topic. The daily mass shootings are number two citizen concern, according to the NBC/WSJ poll from two days ago.

I troll for intelligent information or insight, using current and pertinent content. I encounter all the wisdom of Judge Taney.

 

And you don't have the thunder or cachet of bull gaytor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 7/24/2018 at 10:36 PM, Contumacious Tom said:

9th Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Applies In Public

It may take a few more years or decades, but the nonsense that we had indoor militias is just that: nonsense. It won't prevail in the end.

Hear We Go En Banc Again

The fantasy of indoor militias is surprisingly enduring. Will be interesting to see how this one is handled.

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

If your home is owned by the government, does that mean you don't have second amendment rights?

No, says a federal judge.

Quote

Among whatever else, the Second Amendment protects the right of a law-abiding individual to possess functional firearms in his or her home for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense and defense of family.

Yes, even if you live in public housing.

It's regressive and troubling that grabbers would even fight this battle. I guess the rights of poor people are only important sometimes.

I'm glad the grabbers were forced to pay the legal fees when they lost.

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

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

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 the majority of Justices intended.  But in real world applications, it's a nightmare.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jules said:

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 the majority of Justices intended.  But in real world applications, it's a nightmare.

The "SCOTUS-capitalist version"??   Really?  Please, do expand on that thought some more.  This should be good.

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

The "SCOTUS-capitalist version"??   Really?  Please, do expand on that thought some more.  This should be good.

Really?  Do you want the DUH! version or should I walk you through the whole corporations hire lobbyist and then and then and then version?

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

Really?  Do you want the DUH! version or should I walk you through the whole corporations hire lobbyist and then and then and then version?

I'd like to hear about the version where "the people" is an individual right, except when the writer decides that the "right" being described is bad.

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

Really?  Do you want the DUH! version or should I walk you through the whole corporations hire lobbyist and then and then and then version?

I want the long version, with sources.

I'd suggest starting with what the Supreme Court had to say on the issue when it came to Dred Scott and then work forward toward the present day.

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

The "SCOTUS-capitalist version"??   Really?  Please, do expand on that thought some more.  This should be good.

Really?  Do you want the DUH! version or should I walk you through the whole corporations hire lobbyist and then and then and then version?

I'm gonna need you to walk me through the whole thing, please.  I'm failing to see the SCOTUS connection.  Humor me.   

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

I'd like to hear about the version where "the people" is an individual right, except when the writer decides that the "right" being described is bad.

You've heard this ^^^ from me., and this is why: flaunting weapons in  public has never been accepted, because of human behavior, which has not changed.

Quote

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

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

(1329) The Statute of Northampton was recorded, forbidding carrying guns in public.  See text elsewhere.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2018 at 6:12 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

In your own words (no cutnpaste please), Why do you think the suicide rate didn't decrease after the 2008 crisis??

This is what I asked you, Jeffie. Twice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're not permitted to defend yourself outside the home?  

Edited because calling you an idiot in this situation just wasn't nice. 

Hi Guy. Historically, there was zip fir an assumption of innocence if a weapon was involved.

You may "defend yourself" all day long outside the home, and most of us do. But traditionally and legally, Not long before Larry Pratt you could not allowed firearms  or swords,  to do this. The same was true within the common law we adopted.

If you hid such a weapon in Merry Old England the offense became a felony.  Need any cites?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're not permitted to defend yourself outside the home?  

Edited because calling you an idiot in this situation just wasn't nice. 

Totally, just not with a gun, knife, or flame thrower. No machetes, lead pipes, brass knuckles, num chucks or police batons either.  Cell phones and mace are acceptable.

Thread solved..

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

Totally, just not with a gun, knife, or flame thrower. No machetes, lead pipes, brass knuckles, num chucks or police batons either.  Cell phones and mace are acceptable.

Thread solved..

Of course - now, you've just gotta get the violent thugs to agree to that as well.  

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

Hundreds of millions of Americans manage without any of these things every day but you sound terrified..

Fear sells.  Just ask the lobbyists and the politicians they own.

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

You've heard this ^^^ from me., and this is why: flaunting weapons in  public has never been accepted, because of human behavior, which has not changed.

As has been explained to you many times Joe, you can find help for your reading comprehension problems at your local community college.

But it is nice that you continually try to change the topic to a faraway country that is a constitutional monarchy. Still waiting for you to provide a quote in any current state or federal law that incorporates your favorite statute from 1328.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites