Jump to content

Oh Looky - NY Sheriffs Association responds to Cuomo's gun laws.


Guest One of Five

Recommended Posts

(Thanks for the race-baiting. Such a clever Libertarian we find here.)

 

We need a source supporting your never-ending claim that the Miller case has fuck all to do with non-militia gun rights.

Sol once stated, flatly, that you mis-quote case law. The Miller case is a strong example of this. Out.

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

I'm wondering if that idea applies when the subject is limiting access to tools, more commonly known as gun control?   Badlat, was it wrong for the Democrat lobbyists in NY to have their puppets dec

NY Pistol Possession Permits Upheld   Meanwhile, there's a looming problem with about a million Uncooperative New Yawkuhs   When grabberz say they're issuing a "lifetime" permit, wha

Originally Answered: What caliber kills the most? Statistically, within the United States anyway, that would be the 22 Long Rifle cartridge. The 22 bolt action rifle is the mos

Posted Images

On 9/4/2019 at 11:05 AM, jocal505 said:

We need a source supporting your never-ending claim that the Miller case has fuck all to do with non-militia gun rights.

You haven't read it because you can't find it? That's easily fixed:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

8 hours ago, jocal505 said:

the PLCAA and FOPA legislation needs to be aired out, and nullified. 


This is why non-readers are so funny. You don't know that the amicus briefs posted from the grabby side have been relying on FOPA as a reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to review NYC's ridiculous rules. Too funny.

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

You haven't read it because you can't find it? That's easily fixed:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html


This is why non-readers are so funny. You don't know that the amicus briefs posted from the grabby side have been relying on FOPA as a reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to review NYC's ridiculous rules. Too funny.

1.Poorly sourced: that's just the cover sheet to United States vs. Miller. It considers the gun rights of a male capable of the common defense.

2.Dude, Miller v the USA had a flaw, which was a basis of gun rights in the SC... for fighting age males only.

3. I read  what I want, when I want to read.

4. I've read a thousand pages of Patrick Charles recently, and some Darrel Miller and Robert Speitzer, which was superb. It painted you as a teller of fantasy, and as an abuser of factual history.

 

You are a scary and flakey guy. Dogballs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:19 PM, Repastinate Tom said:
Quote

New York City and other dense urban centers—where no resident is ever truly alone and every individual’s actions necessarily impact those around her—presentmany of the same heightened regulatory needs that characterize the “sensitive places” that Heller recognized. Neither New York City’s former rule nor its current regulatory and licensing scheme are overreaching and unconstitutional limitations on a fundamental right, but are instead a response to the unavoidable reality that any gun in New York City, even when lawfully and responsibly possessed or carried, poses grave dangers to neighbors and passersby. Petitioners’ briefing ignores this reality in its entirety.

LMAO. If a licensed owner takes a gun to a gunsmith without asking nanny state permission, that poses a grave danger! Hence the prohibition on doing so was just more "common sense" gun control, since that's the only kind of gun control.

Glad to see they are fellow Favre fans...

Quote

While law enforcement encounters provide myriad ex-amples of apparent collisions between the interest in safe-guarding the public and the limitations on government ac-tion imposed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amend-ments, the principle that context-specific public-safety concerns inform how courts construe fundamental rights applies more generally. Indeed, even though this Court has held that some false statements enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, United Statesv. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 730 (2012), it is axiomatic that the Bill of Rights would not shield someone who falsely yells fire in a crowded theater precisely because of the dangers created by the ensuing panic. Schenckv. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919). Consistent with the paramount interest in the protection of the public, the First Amendment has his-torically never interfered with states’ police powers to regulate or proscribe speech that is integral to criminal conduct or speech that is “directed to inciting or produc-ing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or pro-duce such action,” among others. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969); see alsoGiboney v. Empire Stor-age & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). The First Amend-ment’s unqualified textual command that “Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech” has never compelled a different result.

Wow. First, fourth, fifth and sixth amendment comparisons. They must think everything is related to guns!

Quote

Dense urban centers such as New York City present similar risks of unintended conse-quences and collateral damage if significantly more indi-viduals are able to carry guns in such close quarters on a daily basis.3 As explained below, the peculiar challenges of ensuring public safety in a high-population, high-den-sity city such as New York City amply support the City’s regulatory and licensing scheme, including the former rule at the heart of this case.

This is nonsense because some of the petitioners live closer to New Jersey gun ranges than to the NYC ones they were allowed to attend. So the former rule put their guns on more NYC streets than just allowing them to go to New Jersey.

Quote

Even if only those persons vetted and licensed to keep a handgun in their New York homeswere permitted to carry their arms around New York City, there would be a substantial number of instances in which they would turn to their weapons—or others would obtain them—in the frequent frustrations, annoyances, and altercations that characterize life in a dense urban center.

NYC has the data on what licensees have done with their guns and could release it to confirm or deny this speculation. But they won't. Gee, I wonder why?

Quote

Though the NYPD cannot keep stolen guns out of New York City entirely, the ability to enact regulations like those that existed at the outset of the case go a long way to help. The limits on public carry ensure that gun owners will not accidentally leave guns in public spaces where the guns would be available to children and criminals alike.

NYC has the data on what licensees' guns have been stolen and could release it to confirm or deny this speculation. But they won't. Gee, I wonder why?

Quote

States and communities—particularly urban ones—have imposed strict regulations on the possession and carry of guns since before the adoption of the Second Amendment.

Oh dear. Stites Rats advocates. He must like discrimination, screwing groups of people, and probably slavery too.

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

You haven't read it because you can't find it? That's easily fixed:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html


This is why non-readers are so funny. You don't know that the amicus briefs posted from the grabby side have been relying on FOPA as a reason the Supreme Court doesn't need to review NYC's ridiculous rules. Too funny.

1.Poorly sourced: that's just the cover sheet to United States vs. Miller.

Hah! Can't even find it when provided a direct link to the opinion.

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

Hah! Can't even find it when provided a direct link to the opinion.

Hi Tom. Happy Saturday, too.

 

Let's review all this. You made a loud mistake, on a basic: Miller case law. You got called out on this, because you had quoted the key element of Miller's selection (that he was a male capable of the common defense) on four different threads, in 2014.  So you took a black Sharpie and extended your mistake...

 

You have been called out for "alternate facts,", within a limited community. (Where is your dignity? Where is your self-respect? You smell like dogballs.)

Yo, either STFU, or provide some source already (besides your own, shitty, misleading, self-serving claim) linking the people's gun rights to Miller.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 7:05 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

 Aug 12 2019     Amicus brief of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
Aug 12 2019     Motion to participate in oral argument of Neal Goldfarb submitted.

Being a fan of unintentional humor, I hope Mr. Goldfarb is offered the opportunity to get up in front of SCOTUS and say stuff like this:

So the BIG ERROR in Heller was that the court somehow acted like "bear arms" is in any way similar to "bear weapons" when clearly one has almost four more letters so is very, very different.

You twisted the shit out of this one.Based on info which has emerged, Neal Goldfarb and others, Baron, Blackman and Phillips, say that Heller was dead wrong about 'bear arms." Each did his own independent analysis. Goldfarb's brief wants the basic Heller decision suspended for being inappropriate. 

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

Why do you want to ruin my fun? :(

Well, we all know Joe will never read it - even though it is only ~5 pages long.

The echo chamber will never read it, because their feelings tell them something must be done. "doing something" never seems to cover things that kill or injure at rates that far exceed firearms.

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

Based on info which has emerged, Neal Goldfarb and others, Baron, Blackman and Phillips, say that Heller was dead wrong about 'bear arms."

Yeah, I read it. Because "bear arms" is sooooo different from "bear weapons."

I'd really enjoy seeing that argument made in this case. It's awesome when the room erupts in laughter at oral arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The computerized study of language now reveals that Scalia was making shit up, about a military term, to "bear arms." And Tom and bpm go into obfuscation mode.

 

I have a question for you jerks. If Tom tells sustained lies about the basics of United States vs Miller, what good is hs interpretation of Kelo vs New London?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep 04 2019    Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.

Oh boy.
 

Quote

 

The threshold question, then, is not whether the Second Amendment protects an “absolute” right “to train anywhere one wishe” or to “transport[] ... guns without restriction.” NYC.Br.20, 23, 34. It is instead whether the conduct that the transport ban severely restricts—transporting an unloaded and securely stowed firearm outside the home so that it can be lawfully used elsewhere—is protected by the Second Amendment. As to that relevant question, there can be no serious debate that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms protects that conduct and that a law restricting that conduct must be justified by the government. Indeed, the only way such a restriction could plausibly fail to even implicate the Second Amendment is if the right to keep and bear arms is strictly confined to the home.

It is not.

 

That's going to trigger heck out of the indoor militia crowd.

Quote

As for history and tradition, the City does not identify a single historical (or even modern-day) law that restricted the right of individuals to transport their firearms to places where they could lawfully engage in firearms training or keep and bear them for self-defense. Indeed, the City’s misguided effort to show that the right to train was historically subject to some modest time and place restrictions only underscores that the right to transport firearms to lawful places was presumed, and that its wholesale restrictions on that right are wholly unprecedented. The City can point to laws placing certain training locations off-limits, but when it comes to a law saying that firearms cannot be transported from the home to places where they can be lawfully used and possessed, the City comes up empty. The City’s reliance on early laws prohibiting the “indiscreet” or “random” firing of firearms in public is equally misplaced. See NYC.Br.20-23 (citing SA5-6). Petitioners have never made the absurd claim that the Second Amendment protects a right to fire their handguns at random throughout the streets of New York City. Laws prohibiting individuals from firing their handguns in certain public places absent the need to use them for self-defense thus lend no support to the City’s effort to preclude individuals from transporting their handguns to out-of-city locations where they are lawfully entitled to keep and bear them. If anything, those laws fatally undermine the City’s cause. After all, there would have been no need to restrict the indiscriminate firing of firearms in public if there were a history or tradition of confining firearms to the home.

The City is basically making the same argument we see over and over here: if you don't like some nonsensical regulation, you must not like any regulations at all!

I found it interesting that the brief only addressed the suggestion of mootness in a footnote:

Quote

The City prefaces its merits argument by repeating its contention that this case is moot. It is not. As petitioners have explained, they manifestly have not obtained everything from the unilateral and begrudging changes in city and state law that they could have gotten were this case litigated to a favorable result, with declaratory relief that the transport ban is (and always was) unconstitutional and binding, forward-looking injunctive relief. The City notably does not claim otherwise, here or in its mootness papers. The case is thus not moot for Article III purposes. And to the extent the City’s objection is merely prudential, there is no plausible basis to reward the City’s transparent effort to frustrate this Court’s discretionary review.

It's the "binding, forward-looking injunctive relief" that is a real problem. As noted, the City and State could, and I think likely would, immediately undo the changes in law they have enacted in an effort to avoid arguing this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those wacky Brits!

Quote

 

Quote

that no person or persons of what estate or degree he or they be, except he or they in their own right or in the right of his or their wife to his or their own uses or any other to the use of such person or persons, have lands, tenements, fees, annuities or office to the yearly value of one hundred pounds, from or after the last day of June next coming shall shoot any crossbow, handgun, hagbutt or demy hake, or use or keep in his or their houses or elsewhere any Crossbow, handgun, hagbutt or demy hake, otherwise or in any manner then is hereafter in the present Act declared,

I thought hagbutt was what you saw when Hillary was going away from you.

Still not sure what a demy hake is. But it is clear that the goals of gun control haven't changed since the 16th century: it's for plebes, not rich people. The rich were allowed to have guns in England back then much like in NYC today.

Quote

And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that no person or persons form the last day of June shall in anyways shoot in or with any handgun demyhake or hagbutt at any thing at large, within any city, borough, or market town or within one quarter of a mile of any city, borough or market town, except it be at a butt or bank of earth in place convenient, or for the defense of his person or house, upon pain to forfeit for every such shot ten pounds;

Non-readers like jocal probably believe that this means they couldn't fire weapons outdoors but it obviously means that such behavior was permitted as long as they were shooting at a bank of earth or for self-defense or defense of their home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More from that supplemental appendix:

Quote

An Act for Restraining the Disorderly Practice of Discharging Fire Arms at Certain Hours and Places, § 4 (Ohio 1790), reprinted in 1 The Statutes of Ohio and the Northwestern Territory, Adopted or Enacted from 1788 to 1833 Inclusive 104, 105 (Salmon P. Chase ed. 1833)

The Act starts by saying you have to be a quarter mile from town to shoot and sets out a fine from 1 to 5 dollars for violators. But it goes on...
 

Quote

 

Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed to extend to any person lawfully using firearms as offensive or defensive weapons, in annoying or opposing a common enemy, or defending his or her person or property, or the person or property of any other, against the invasion or depredations of an enemy, or in the support of the laws and government; or against the attacks of rebels, highwaymen, robbers, thieves, or others unlawfully assailing him or her, or in any other manner where such opposition, defense, or resistance is allowed by the law of the land.

 

The bolded part is a double trigger for the indoor militia crowd there. It explicitly allows self-defense and also explicitly includes women.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 5:47 AM, jocal505 said:

On an international level, both "bear arms" and "defence" meant national militia', in the writing of the day. Over and over.

"National militia" against "highwaymen, robbers, thieves, or others unlawfully assailing him or her" huh, Joe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure how NYC thinks this supplemental appendix helps their case. Here's another:
 

Quote

 

Indianapolis, Ind., Ordinances: Public Health and Comfort, § 9 (1869), reprinted in Byron K. Elliott, The Charter and General Ordinances of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, in Force August 1st, 1869, at 291 (1869)

Whoever shall fire a gun or pistol in said city, shall be fined therefor in any sum not exceeding fifty dollars: Provided, That such penalty for shooting shall not apply to military companies, while performing military duty, or to any police officer or officers while in discharge of any duty in pursuance of any ordinance of said city, or in obedience to any law of the State of Indiana; or to any person who may fire any gun or pistol in or upon his own premises, except where the ball or shot shall pass beyond the limits of said premises, or in defense of his own life, liberty or property, or when attached by any vicious animal.

 

As the bolded bit shows, it's another example showing that self-defense using guns was allowed, even in cities that otherwise prohibited firing of guns.
 

Quote

 

An Ordinance Regulating the Police of the City of Quincy, Ill., § 5 (1841), reprinted in Samuel P. Church, The Revised Ordinances of the City of Quincy, Ill. to Which are Prefixed the Charter of the City of Quincy, and the Amendment Thereto 47 (1841)

Be it further ordained, That no person shall, within the limits of said city, fire or discharge any cannon, musket, rifle, fowling piece, or other fire arms, or air-gun, except in cases of necessity...

 

"...cases of necessity" can only mean in self-defense and maybe in defense of property in this context. It goes on and on. If they're trying to prove that guns could not be fired in cities under any circumstances, they keep proving the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A week from next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear about the mootness issue in this case.

A SCOTUSblog overview of mootness
 

Quote

 

...

Soon after the court agreed to hear the New York City case, perhaps because of the prospect of a ruling that might expand the scope of Second Amendment rights, New York City officials moved to amend the challenged regulation and then asked the justices to dismiss the case as moot.

What is mootness and when does it apply? As a general matter, a case becomes moot when the parties no longer have an interest that can be resolved by the court’s decision.

The rule is derived from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which defines “the judicial power” as extending to “cases” and “controversies.” The Supreme Court has long interpreted this language to mean that federal courts have jurisdiction to decide only those cases in which the parties have concrete interests that will be resolved by a judicial decision. Those tangible interests must be present at every stage of the lawsuit, the court has said, from initial filing to final decision.

A principal theory behind the case and controversy requirement – and behind the mootness doctrine, as well – is that courts will reach the best decisions when the cases they decide are litigated in a process that is truly adversarial on behalf of parties who have a real stake in the outcome.

When tangible interests are no longer present for the parties in a dispute, a case may become moot. The theory, again, is that parties to a case may not make the best arguments and engage in zealous advocacy if they no longer have genuine, tangible interests in the outcome.

 

The status of the laws at issue in this case, and any future ones that might be enacted by NYC or other local governments, is still a tangible interest.

I hadn't heard about this one:

Quote

Typically, a dispute will become moot because no issues remain that will have a real effect on the litigants. In one well-known example, DeFunis v. Odegaard, the Supreme Court ruled that the claim of a white law student that he was denied admission to law school because of his race and the operation of an affirmative action plan was moot because the student had been allowed to attend law school while the case was pending and was close to graduating. A determination by the Supreme Court that the student was or was not denied admission because of his race would not have affected that individual student’s status or interests, the justices said.

In the current case, NY State and NY City could reverse the changes in law that they made to moot this case in a lot less than four years.

Quote

Enter the New York gun case. When New York amended its regulations, lawyers for the city quickly asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot. The challenged regulations would no longer be enforced, the city argued, and any ruling on the constitutionality of those regulations would have no impact on anyone. The city also noted that New York state changed its gun licensing law to require communities to allow transport of guns within the state. The city “no longer has any stake in whether the Constitution requires localities to allow people to transport licensed handguns to second homes or firing ranges outside of municipal borders,” the city said in its motion asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as moot.

That's true in part, but before amending their regulations, NY City proposed doing so and immediately asked that the case be suspended based on that proposal. It didn't work

On 4/30/2019 at 7:19 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

And yesterday, the Supreme Court went NUTZ

Quote
Apr 29 2019   Motion of respondents to hold briefing schedule in abeyance DENIED. 

Grabbers also went NUTZ
 

Quote

 

The battle escalated in mid-August when U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., filed a friend-of-the-court brief for himself and four other Democratic senators. The brief, unique in its tone, warned that if the justices expand Second Amendment rights and fail to dismiss the case as moot, the ruling will fuel a growing public perception that the Supreme Court is acting politically and not applying legal principles. The brief accuses gun-rights groups of “an industrial-strength influence campaign” aimed at the court. “The Supreme Court is not well,” Whitehouse concluded, suggesting that the court “heal itself” before there are serious public demands to restructure it.

The Whitehouse brief prompted strong, critical commentary from conservative groups, transforming the mootness fight into a proxy for warfare over the direction of the Supreme Court. “To Save a Bad Gun Law, Democratic Senators Threaten the Supreme Court,” a Heritage Foundation headline proclaimed.

 

"Unique" is hardly descriptive. No other amicus brief I've ever seen in this case or any other threatens the court.

I think those Senators vastly misoverestimate public backlash should the Supreme Court hear this case instead of calling it off. That's because NYC had indefensibly bad gun laws, as their hasty efforts to moot this case indicate. If they thought they could defend them, in court or in public perception, they would have defended them instead of changing them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still plowing through that supplemental appendix. A long train of old laws against shooting guns inside city limits, an issue not really relevant to the current Supreme Court case and not really controversial then or now. Many of them contain specific self-defense exceptions.

Fort Worth, Texas had a sort of interesting one.
 

Quote

 

Ordinances of the City of Fort Worth, Ord. No. 40, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Shooting Off, Firing or Discharging of Fire-Arms, Etc. (1880), reprinted in Revised Ordinances of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, 1873–1884, at 64–65 (1885)

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fort Worth: § 1. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to shoot off, fire, or discharge any gun, pistol, revolver or any firearm of any description, or to fire, explode or set off any squib, firecracker, torpedo, roman candle, sky-rocket, or other thing containing powder or other explosive matter, or to throw any fire-ball or make any bon-fire in the corporate limits of this city, and that any person or persons violating the provisions of this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than one dollar nor more than one hundred dollars. Provided that this shall not apply to any licensed shooting gallery nor to the shooting of dogs running at large in violation of the city ordinances.

 

 

Texans. What are you going to do?

Next comes a long train of 18th century laws requiring militia training. None of them seem to indicate that "well regulated" meant "prohibited from having guns" back then.

Next they cite old laws about storage of gunpowder. The one from NY City in 1784

Quote

it shall not be lawfull for any merchant, shopkeeper, or retailer, or any other person, or persons whatsoever, to have or keep any quantity of gun powder exceeding twenty-eight pounds weight, in any one place, less than one mile to the northward of the city hall of the said city, except in the public magazine at the Fresh-water, and the said quantity of twenty-eight pounds weight, which shall be lawfull for any person to have and keep at any place within this city, shall be seperated into four stone jugs or tin cannisters, which shall not contain more than seven pounds each, on pain of forfeiting all such gun powder, and the sum of fifty pounds for every hundred weight, and in that proportion for a greater or lesser quantity, and upon pain of forfeiting such quantity which any person may lawfully keep as aforesaid, and which shall not be seperated as above directed

28 lbs? I don't know much about the weapons of that time but that seems like a shitload of gunpowder.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The appendix concludes with some regulations that are actually sort of relevant to the case, including this one from Arkansas:
 

Quote

 

An Act to Regulate the Ownership of Pistols and Revolvers, §§ 1–3, 1923 Ark. Acts 379, 380

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Arkansas:

From and after the passage of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to own or have in his custody or possession any pistol or revolver, except as herein provided:

§ 1. Any person having in his possession or custody any pistol or revolver, shall within 60 days from the approval of this Act, present such firearm to the county clerk of the county, where he resides, and it shall be the duty of the said county clerk to enter upon a separate record provided for that purpose, the name, age, place or residence, and color of the party, together with the make, caliber and number of said pistol or revolver.

 

Color? I wonder why they want to know the applicant's color?

Quote

§ 2. Any person so registering as provided in section 1 of this Act, shall then make application for a license or permit, which said application shall bepassed upon by a board consisting of the sheriff, county judge and county clerk of said county whose duty it shall be to consider the application and if the applicant be a person of good moral character, whose conduct, past record and occupation is such as to prove to said board that he is a person of good character, then the county clerk shall issue to the applicant a permit upon a printed form provided for that purpose...

Oh. Got it. Back then, some people considered black people to be immature and volatile. We still have a handful like that around today. For such people, skin color could help to determine who has good character and who does not.

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

Suggestion of mootness DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.

I wonder how that went?

Nothing new on scotusblog, which still says

Quote

SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 2, 2019.

CNN has a pretty good article that summarizes the NY case and a couple of others that are in progress in other states.

Quote

the Supreme Court will meet behind closed doors this week to consider whether or not to proceed with a case that could impact Second Amendment rights.

But we don't yet know what happened behind those doors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS had a conference this morning and...

Quote

Oct 07 2019  The Respondent's Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.

And if denied again, they should be prepared to discuss indoor militias. And to be laughed at.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 2:01 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

SCOTUS had a conference this morning and...

And if denied again, they should be prepared to discuss indoor militias. And to be laughed at.

The ninth circuit was laughing when they sent Scot Peruta home to San Diego, without any outdoor gun. They were chuckling away, because they had discovered that neither CC nor OC  has legal precedent in common law. No reversal happened.

Larry Pratt's POV meant nothing to them.

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

The ninth circuit was laughing when they sent Scot Peruta home to San Diego, without any outdoor gun. They were chuckling away, because they had discovered that neither CC nor OC  has legal precedent in common law. No reversal happened.

Larry Pratt's POV meant nothing to them.

We know that you prefer limiting CCW to those most qualified, Joe: the ones who donated to the sheriffs election campaign. Or who made extra payments to the police doing the vetting.

The rest of us know that your observations quoted above have nothing to do with the case before SCOTUS. If you work at it, maybe you can find some new things to cut-n-paste.

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

We know that you prefer limiting CCW to those most qualified, Joe: the ones who donated to the sheriffs election campaign. Or who made extra payments to the police doing the vetting.

The rest of us know that your observations quoted above have nothing to do with the case before SCOTUS. If you work at it, maybe you can find some new things to cut-n-paste.

The indoor militia argument gets brought up a lot around here.  Wankers find value in this argument. Go for it.

 

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

A couple of new developments in the case SCOTUS will hear in December:
 

Quote

 

Oct 15 2019    Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.

Oct 15 2019    Motion of Neal Goldfarb for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED.

 

The latter is a major disappointment to fans of unintentional comedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but the latest developments:

Quote

 

Oct 23 2019    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.
Oct 25 2019    CIRCULATED


 

If we had a lawyer or two here who were interested in discussing the second amendment, maybe they could tell us why this request might have been made.

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

I'm not sure what this means exactly, but the latest developments:

If we had a lawyer or two here who were interested in discussing the second amendment, maybe they could tell us why this request might have been made.

One lawyer made a comment, one fine day. Said that he avoided the gun threads because a "bullshitter" would just dominate the conversation.

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

Guns have always been regulated, including outdoors, but gun have also been allowed to be transported, durting duress, during security work, or routinely, the latter if unloaded, and wrapped or sealed.


Nonsense. In the law to be discussed in the Supreme Court on December 2, for example, transporting a gun to a gunsmith requires prior permission from the government and transporting it out of NY City is just not allowed at all.

In less grabby areas, we can transport guns that are not "wrapped or sealed", can take them to a gunsmith without even asking, and can visit shooting ranges outside of our city of residence, and always have been able to do so.

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


Nonsense. In the law to be discussed in the Supreme Court on December 2, for example, transporting a gun to a gunsmith requires prior permission from the government and transporting it out of NY City is just not allowed at all.

In less grabby areas, we can transport guns that are not "wrapped or sealed", can take them to a gunsmith without even asking, and can visit shooting ranges outside of our city of residence, and always have been able to do so.

Try to stay on track. Such disinformation.

NOTE: The point I was making (to Clean) was that evidence shows that you and Jeffie have an entire belief system concocted after 1974-'76. Patrick J. Charles has dug up more dirt faux  scholarship in that time period. (I need to check if the author is a Libertarian soon.)

 

 

You hopped threads, and as you did you just took the scholar's general observation, in the context of the gun culture of 1920 to 1970, and applied it to today's gun culture developments. Instead, yo, let's follow the nascient individual rights ideas, and test them against common law.

Try to stay on track, and up your game, seriously.

 

 

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

always have been able to do so.

Wrong, dogballs. You are imagining stuff or making stuff up while following Larry effing Pratt.

This information is coming from  a brief in the NY case. In Anglo-American law, it developed that one had to get a "surety bond" to pack heat. Sir John Knight was forced to get one in the legal dustup in that affair. Check this out, because it just wasn't freestyle gunz until Larry came along...

Quote

 Patrick J. Charles does NY  p 9 of 33 

 HAWKINS, supra, at 158, ch. 65, § 10 (providing that “an Assembly of a Man’s Friends for the Defence of his person, against those who threaten to beat him if he go to such a Market is unlawful; for he who is in Fear of such Insults, must provide for his Safety, by demanding the Surety of the Peace against the Persons by whom he is threatened, and not make use of such violent Methods, which cannot but be attended with the Danger of raising Tumults and Disorders to the Disturbance of the Publick Peace:

Yet an Assembly of a Man’s Friends in his own House, for the Defence of the Possession thereof, against those who threaten to make an unlawful Entry thereinto, or for the Defence of his Person against those who threaten to beat him therein, is indulged by Law; for a Man’s House is looked upon as his Castle.

 

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

This information is coming from  a brief in the NY case. In Anglo-American law, it developed that one had to get a "surety bond" to pack heat. Sir John Knight was forced to get one in the legal dustup in that affair. Check this out, because it just wasn't freestyle gunz until Larry came along...

Quote

 HAWKINS, supra, at 158, ch. 65, § 10 (providing that “an Assembly of a Man’s Friends for the Defence of his person, against those who threaten to beat him if he go to such a Market is unlawful; for he who is in Fear of such Insults, must provide for his Safety, by demanding the Surety of the Peace against the Persons by whom he is threatened, and not make use of such violent Methods, which cannot but be attended with the Danger of raising Tumults and Disorders to the Disturbance of the Publick Peace: Yet an Assembly of a Man’s Friends in his own House, for the Defence of the Possession thereof, against those who threaten to make an unlawful Entry thereinto, or for the Defence of his Person against those who threaten to beat him therein, is indulged by Law; for a Man’s House is looked upon as his Castle

 

Which brief? Because the phrase "Anglo-American" indicates you're trying to apply English rules and say they were American rules, so let's see the context.

And how does "demanding the Surety of the Peace against the Persons by whom he is threatened" translate into a surety bond to pack heat in your mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Commentary on the "March For Our Lives" amicus brief

Quote

Gun-control advocates need their own constitutional narrative, one that incorporates a broader conception of self-defense into its vision. Since Heller, the Court has drawn a straight line connecting the broader, constitutionally grounded right to self-defense to the more specific right to individual gun ownership. But defense of oneself and one’s family can be pursued in a variety of ways. An individual right to gun ownership offers one path, deputizing all people to defend themselves with a firearm at their side. Gun regulation offers another such path to self-defense, one vastly more efficacious and preferred by the American public. It represents a mode of preemptive self-defense, whereby the state is tasked by its citizens with limiting access to deadly force.

There already is such a narrative. It goes like this: "You must like dead kids so give us your property." It's as persuasive as ever.

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

Which brief? Because the phrase "Anglo-American" indicates you're trying to apply English rules and say they were American rules, so let's see the context.

And how does "demanding the Surety of the Peace against the Persons by whom he is threatened" translate into a surety bond to pack heat in your mind?

The quote is a jewel, with a link. The quote contains the logic which applies today, because of Larry and his elk. The Hawkins principle was adopted widely by the Colonies, I hear.

Dogballs, my fine fellow, you just wailed about having to notify authorities about moving guns around, claiming it's a new problem. It isn't. And there is a solid track record (in Anglo American law) of distrust of guns in public, whether concealed or not. 

No intelligent discourse today?

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

The quote is a jewel, with a link.

Thanks for editing your post to include the link. Looks like you're referencing an Olde English version of a restraining order and confusing it with a bond.

 

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

Thanks for editing your post to include the link. Looks like you're referencing an Olde English version of a restraining order and confusing it with a bond.

 

FACT: the authorities got a "heads up" for the special need of packing.

FACT: Before Larry Pratt et al (meaning 1974), there was no assumption in play that running around with guns, for confrontations, was okay.

Quote

(p16 of the same source, fill your boots here)

From 1922 to 1930, two model laws were presented to state lawmakers for consideration. The first was the Capper Bill, drafted by the United States Revolver Association (USRA) and first sponsored by Kansas Senator Arthur Capper. This was followed by the Uniform Firearms Act (UFA), which was initially drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners and revised largely at the behest of the USRA and National Rifle Association (NRA).

 See HANDBOOK OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS UNIFORM STATE LAWS AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTYFOURTH ANNUAL MEETING 711-42 (1924); UNIFORM FIREARMS ACT: DRAFTED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS 3-14 (1930). 

Regarding their provisions regulating the transport and carrying of dangerous weapons, the UFA and Capper Bill were essentially mirror images. Both contained provisions requiring persons to show good cause or a justifiable need before carrying or transporting handguns in public.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

The Dred Scott case was well before 1974 and said that citizens could keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Just because you don't read the cases you like to discuss doesn't mean the rest of us join you in your ignorance.

We were trying to find if the outdoor guns went freestyle before, or after, Larry Pratt. Then you just flicked to your signature race-baiting, and drifted to a personal attack.  

To be continued.

 

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

"Vermont Carry" was a better name.

I'm sure Jocal hates the term "Vermont Carry", since he likes to pretend firearm rights didn't exist until 20 years ago.

"1. Const. c. 1, art. 16, declares that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. V. S. 4922, prohibits any person from carrying a dangerous weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent of injuring another. Section 4923 prohibits a person, while a member of and in attendance on a school, from having in his possession any dangerous weapon. Held, that a city ordinance prohibiting a person from carrying within the city any brass knuckles, pistol, slung shot, or weapon of similar character, or any weapon concealed on his person, without permission of the mayor or chief of police, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol under any circumstances without such consent, is repugnant to the Constitution, and to that extent void."

State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610 (1903)

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/31st.htm

Those horrible time-traveling libertarians!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/30/2019 at 2:51 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

.

And how does "demanding the Surety of the Peace against the Persons by whom he is threatened" translate into a surety bond to pack heat in your mind?

You are one VERY poorly informed fellow. FACT: Gun control meant surety bond for hundreds of years.

Quote

P 9, footnote 3      Patrick Charles Does NY

 The surety process originally developed out of Anglo-Saxon practice as a means to enforce the king’s peace. David Feldman, The King’s Peace, the Royal Prerogative and Public Order: The Roots and Early Development of Binding over Powers, 47 Cambridge L.J. 101, 111-12 (1988). In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the Anglo-Saxon surety process was updated and codified in several statutes. Id. at 111-26. From the fourteenth century through the early nineteenth century, the surety process remained a staple of Anglo-American law. See, e.g., 4 ST. GEORGE TUCKER, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES 251-56

 and accompanying notes (1803)…

 

 One of the key functions of the surety process was preventing public affrays, assaults, and injuries. As it pertained to the precautionary carrying of dangerous weapons in public places, the surety process required individuals to first seek sureties with a constable, justice of the peace, or other official before being permitted to do so. See, e.g., 1 HAWKINS, supra, at 158, ch. 65, § 10 (providing that “an Assembly of a Man’s Friends for the Defence of his person, against those who threaten to beat him if he go to such a Market is unlawful…

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99640/20190514123434398_Charles%20Brief.pdf

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, by the close of the nineteenth century, the transporting and carrying of dangerous weapons be-tween one’s residences, between one’s residence and one’s place of business, as well as for purposes of repairing the weapon, selling it, or hunting or recreational shooting all qualified as lawful purposes. Id. at 158-59. The same generally held true for travel or sojourning, or for official business that required the transport or carrying of dangerous weapons from one location to another.

Even Charles admits NYC's ban on taking your gun anywhere except a local range is well beyond the Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws that other amici cite as valuable precedents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Even Charles admits NYC's ban on taking your gun anywhere except a local range is well beyond the Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws that other amici cite as valuable precedents.

Hold on. This discussion has revealed the long-term use of surety bonds, as a safety measure. These were applied in DC until fairly recently.

Quote

P240 TAKE THREE, The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home. Patrick J. Charles

 However, those who were unable to post the required bond could be placed in the gaol, fined, or both.267 And given that the bond could be as high as $200 (roughly the monetary equivalent of $5,400 today), many, if not most persons living in the nineteenth-century would have been forced to suffer the latter punishment.268  Also, a plain reading of these nineteenth-century variants of the Statute of Northampton show their intent and purpose is rather straightforward—to prevent the habitual carrying of arms, as well as ensure the peace, safety, health, and welfare of the public.269 The DC Circuit, however, arrived at a much different conclusion.

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4034&context=clevstlrev

 

 

 

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

Hold on. This discussion has revealed the long-term use of surety bonds, as a safety measure.

Joe, we are well aware of your desire for only the rich to be allowed to do anything with firearms. I'm surprised you haven't been crowing about California allowing county sheriffs to charge whatever they want ("reasonable fees") to get a CCW permit.

34 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

These were applied in DC until fairly recently.

You will be posting a link to that law shortly, right?

After that, will you actually address what Tom wrote, rather then what you wanted him to?

 

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

Joe, we are well aware of your desire for only the rich to be allowed to do anything with firearms. I'm surprised you haven't been crowing about California allowing county sheriffs to charge whatever they want ("reasonable fees") to get a CCW permit.

You will be posting a link to that law shortly, right?

After that, will you actually address what Tom wrote, rather then what you wanted him to?

 

Follow the links, son. Inform yourself. Arm yourself with the whole picture. And just watch me, I stay out of the weeds.

1.Surety bonds protected the public from gun mayhem for hundreds of years. 

2. The deep South led the way on CC restrictions, because they encountered a problem there.

3. Between the '30's and the '50's the NRA arranged laws to permit hunters to driven their guns to ranges and gun stores.

4. In this timeframe they were clearly against loaded weapons in public spacesL they were wary of Larry Pratt types.

 

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

1.Surety bonds protected the public from gun mayhem for hundreds of years.

So you have said.

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

These were applied in DC until fairly recently.

So, once again, link?

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

2. The deep South led the way on CC restrictions, because they encountered a problem there.

Yeah, what was the nature of some of these restrictions, anyway?

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Between the '30's and the '50's the NRA arranged laws to permit hunters to driven their guns to ranges and gun stores.

Link to these laws as well.

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

4. In this timeframe they were clearly against loaded weapons in public spaces

Clearly Vermont Carry is Larry Pratts fault. He traveled back to 1903 and got the judges to read the state constitution they way he wanted them to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest on the pending Supreme Court case is a

Quote

Request from the Clerk that the Solicitor General submit his views on mootness in a letter brief, limited to 10 pages, by 6 p.m., Friday, November 15, 2019. The parties may submit their responses in a letter brief, limited to 10 pages each, by 2 p.m., Wednesday, November 20, 2019.

And the Solicitor General sent the letter

He said the case is not moot, mostly because the petitioners could seek and could be awarded damages.

 

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

A couple more letters on the mootness question were filed.

Quote

Paul Clement for the petitioners offers a list of good reasons to view NY City's sudden change in their laws with skepticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plaintiff Efrain Alvarez has some sort of legal problem
 

Quote

 

Two weeks before Efrain Alvarez and his attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to a New York City regulation that limited where licensed handgun owners could transport their weapons, police officers showed up at his Bronx apartment and took away all his firearms.

...

Alvarez’s August 2018 arrest came after police said he falsely reported a .38 caliber revolver had been stolen by two men he claimed had fooled him by posing as police officers. The saga led police to suspend his handgun license and confiscate his firearms, he said. The New York Police Department declined to discuss Alvarez’s case.

 

That certainly raises more questions than it answers.

What happened to his gun, if anything?

A "saga" is usually longer than just one sentence.

He was arrested over a year ago and it's newsworthy a few days before SCOTUS hears oral arguments in the case?
 

Quote

 

Alvarez also said he accepted a deal last week offered by the Bronx district attorney’s office to drop the charge in six months if he is not arrested again.

Asked about Alvarez’s arrest and license suspension, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Brian Stapleton, said it was the first he had heard of it.

 

Why would the DA drop the charge at all?

His attorneys didn't know about this?

They don't have boats in NY?

I poked around a bit and couldn't find answers to any of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 2:53 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

A couple more letters on the mootness question were filed.

Paul Clement for the petitioners offers a list of good reasons to view NY City's sudden change in their laws with skepticism.

NY saw a storm coming, chose the path of least resistance, and came up with some interim laws. How do you like that moot shit?

Quote

They don't have boats in New York?

They have laws and boats in NY, and gun nuts are not above the laws.

Your elk are going to need to stand on the optics of lawful use, to remain in bounds and "constitutional," remember?

 

 

I want to see your militia types show up for their bi-annual militia meet-ups, under the auspices of their respective governors, or not, with all the fancy, illegal firearms. Such a package we have, coming from Libertaria.

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

NY saw a storm coming, chose the path of least resistance, and came up with some interim laws. How do you like that moot shit?

You do realize they haven't yet mooted the case, right Joe?

Maybe you don't, since reading rulings that you disagree with isn't your normal MO.

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

NY saw a storm coming, chose the path of least resistance, and came up with some interim laws. How do you like that moot shit?

I think the fact that you know they are "interim" law changes is telling. That's the argument that will be made on Monday, I expect.

2 hours ago, bpm57 said:

You do realize they haven't yet mooted the case, right Joe?

They've rejected the mootness argument a couple of times but also directed the parties to be ready to discuss that issue Monday, indicating they have not reached consensus on it.

Trying to learn more about the Efrain Alvarez arrest, I stopped by ar15.com and judging by the forum discussion, at least half of them know less about the SCOTUS case than jocal. Some of the rest were making some effort to fill them in but it seemed a tough job.

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

I think the fact that you know they are "interim" law changes is telling. That's the argument that will be made on Monday, I expect.

They've rejected the mootness argument a couple of times but also directed the parties to be ready to discuss that issue Monday, indicating they have not reached consensus on it.

Trying to learn more about the Efrain Alvarez arrest, I stopped by ar15.com and judging by the forum discussion, at least half of them know less about the SCOTUS case than jocal. Some of the rest were making some effort to fill them in but it seemed a tough job.

You are dogballs, you have a monopoly on first-class legal expertise around here. Which is how we learn that  the militia is a state of mind, that the Miller case is a benchmark for the gun rights of "The People", and that Citizens United falls between harmless and beneficial. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 8:06 PM, bpm57 said:
On 11/9/2019 at 6:21 PM, jocal505 said:

2. The deep South led the way on CC restrictions, because they encountered a problem there.

Yeah, what was the nature of some of these restrictions, anyway?

(Duh.) The laws made CC illegal in the Deep South, every damn time.  Only Kentucky allowed CC formally, and Kentucky soon came around and had to made CC illegal.

WE ARE REPEATING THE BASICS, for DeadEye Dick.

This factual progression, about the historical failure of CC in the South, came out during Peruta II, and these facts were posted and cited on these boards in 2018. My Source was Patrick J. Charles then, and he has now written a book on this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was 2017 when I shared the curious (and forbidden) use of CC all across the Deep south. A trail of legal precedent was left behind.

 

 

For my many cut and paste fans...

Quote

(Joe, in 2017, to the dogballs) @Plenipotentiary Tom

Concealed carry is an historical aberration. It's an anomaly of behavior in the march towards civility. It has been consistently forbidden by numerous U.S. court decisions, especially in the deep south where the practice had to be confronted. This is significant.

The southern courts developed a different gun culture during and after reconstruction. Dueling to settle a quarrel was accepted in the south but not in the north, for example. Yet these southern courts rejected concealed carry, for cause. 

Here's a summary of U.S. state history as explained in Peruta, (which is currently under review in private Thursday discussions in the SC).  Indiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana clearly banned CC.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-894Brief-California-BIO.pdf

31 Thus, by the end of the eighteenth century, when our Second Amendment was adopted, English law had for centuries consistently prohibited carrying concealed (and occasionally the even broader category of concealable) arms in public.

One state allowed CC and had so much trouble they had to forbid the practice. 

P32 With only one exception  (edit: Kentucky)— and a short-lived exception at that — state courts before the Civil War unanimously concluded that members of the general public could be prohibited from carrying concealed weapons. (Note: KY's Bliss decision is specificically rejected by four states.)

P39 The Supreme Court wrote in McDonald that a “clear majority of the States in 1868 . . . recognized the right to keep and bear arms as being among the foundational rights necessary to our system of Government.” 561 U.S. at 777 (emphasis added). Based in substantial part on its understanding of the “clear majority” of states, the Court held that the adopters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to incorporate the right to bear arms preserved by the Second Amendment. As just seen, an overwhelming majority of the states to address the question — indeed, after 1849, all of the states to do so — understood the right to bear arms, under both the Second Amendment and their state constitutions, as not including a right to carry concealed weapons in public.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brady Bunch has been reduced to hysterical shrieking by the SCOTUS case.
 

Quote

 

...

“What a bad decision could do in this case is provide language on which lower courts around the country could potentially strike down important gun safety legislation,” said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president, legal, at Brady.

“The gun lobby would like that decision about public safety to be decided by a few unelected judges, and that’s wrong and that’s contrary to over 200 years of American history and Supreme Court case law,” Mr. Lowy said. “And it infringes on the most fundamental right of Americans, which is [the right] to live. And that’s what really this is all about.”

 

Oh nooooo! If the few NYC residents who are allowed to own handguns are allowed to take them outside the city we're ALL GONNA DIE!!!

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

It was 2017 when I shared the curious (and forbidden) use of CC all across the Deep south. A trail of legal precedent was left behind.

 

 

For my many cut and paste fans...

 

Are you suggesting that CCW is illegal despite the laws that make it legal in most states?

Then again, I guess that is the logical conclusion of your endless c'n'p of the statute of northampton: A 14th century law from another country precludes any changes to laws in any english speaking country, for eternity.

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

Mr. Lowy said. “And it infringes on the most fundamental right of Americans, which is [the right] to live. And that’s what really this is all about.”

Ah yes, the latest (D) talking point on why guns are bad. It is remarkable how this line of thought doesn't seem to apply to anything else that kills people.

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

The SC had declined to proceed with this NY business. Mootness issues.

 

Hah! Just because grabbers wanted something to happen doesn't mean it did, nitwit.

Meanwhile, back in reality, here's the transcript of the argument before the Supreme Court this morning.

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

The SC had declined to proceed with this NY business. Mootness issues.

 

So what was argued this morning?

It is interesting to read the transcript. Kagan sure does have a unique take on a premises vs, carry license.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • This travel issue was resolved already? Each grievance was handled, on a state level?
  • Seventy  two pages of panic about stopping for coffee?
  • After the police said go ahead, have a cup?
  • We might want to visit our mother, while driving around with a gun?
  • Gorsuch gets it that a second gun in an empty second home is not desireable?
  • Kagan balks at making a new law, on the spot, for Paul Clement?
  • We want to sue for damages now, because we missed some gun competitions five years ago?
  • We forgot to mention any need for these damages in the paperwork? 

What a joke.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting case, but probably won't be that interesting of a decision.  I'm not saying Gorsuch is a racist but...

 

Quote

JUSTICE GORSUCH: What do you do about the fact that that was pre-Rule 54 and the federal rules and so on?

MR. DEARING: Alvarez was not pre-Rule -- Alvarez was -- was about a decade ago. Alvarez was long --

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

MR. DEARING: -- after Rule 54. That's a different -- that's Alejandrino --

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Alejandrino, sorry.

I can see how Alvarez and Alejandrino can be mixed up, after all they're not even 100 years apart and they begin with the same letter. Quality mind there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
  • This travel issue was resolved already? Each grievance was handled, on a state level?
  • Seventy  two pages of panic about stopping for coffee?
  • After the police said go ahead, have a cup?
  • We might want to visit our mother, while driving around with a gun?
  • Gorsuch gets it that a second gun in an empty second home is not desireable? 
  • Kagan balks at making a new law, on the spot, for Paul Clement?
  • We want to sue for damages now, because we missed some gun competitions five years ago?
  • We forgot to mention any need for these damages in the paperwork? 

What a joke.

 

"Continuous and uninterrupted" transport means some kinds of stops but not others, at least according to NYC.

It was Ginsburg, not Gorsuch, though as I've pointed out in the thread on the Gamble case, they do make a cute couple. Are you a g-ist or something? Think all G-named people are the same?

Quote

JUSTICE GINSBURG: One -- one problem with the prior regulation, if you wanted to have a gun in your second home, you had to buy a second gun. And what public safety or any other reasonable end is served by saying you have to have two guns instead of one and one of those guns has to be maintained in a place that is often unoccupied and that, therefore, more vulnerable to theft?

The argument today involved the City claiming their new rule doesn't say what it says, and it gives petitioners "all they wanted" but it obviously doesn't. When they brought up the reasons the new law doesn't moot the case, the response was, "but you're talking about the new law and it's not an issue."

Umm... you can't assert that it gives petitioners "all they wanted" and then give such a lame excuse for not hearing objections that it doesn't give them all they wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

 

The argument today involved the City claiming their new rule doesn't say what it says, and it gives petitioners "all they wanted" but it obviously doesn't.

When they brought up the reasons the new law doesn't moot the case, the response was, "but you're talking about the new law and it's not an issue."

Umm... you can't assert that it gives petitioners "all they wanted" and then give such a lame excuse for not hearing objections that it doesn't give them all they wanted.

That's not what the transcript says Tom.  That part of the discussion is about the petitioners looking for SCOTUS to give them an advisory opinion on a matter not before them.  more than half the argument is about the NRA's crappy drafting and failure to amend their claim when NY State stepped in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

interesting case, but probably won't be that interesting of a decision.  I'm not saying Gorsuch is a racist but...

 

I can see how Alvarez and Alejandrino can be mixed up, after all they're not even 100 years apart and they begin with the same letter. Quality mind there.

The ever popular lefty cry of "racist". Of course, we see those non-racist (D) supporters every time a minority actually dares to not agree with the Party, right?

Speaking of quality minds..

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Clement, as I understand New York's scheme, New York has two kinds of licences. It has a premises license and it has a carry license. And you're attacking the premises license scheme on the ground that it doesn't allow you to carry. So why don't you just attack the carry license scheme? If you want to carry, why didn't your clients get a carry license?

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying.

JUSTICE KAGAN: All I'm asking is -is --is there's a premises scheme and a carrying scheme, and your clients want to carry, which suggests that you should have brought a challenge to the carrying scheme if you thought that that was deficient.

She doesn't seem to understand what a "carry" license actually is. Or she believes that one should have a NYC concealed carry permit in order to be "allowed" to take a firearm to a range outside of NYC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

That's not what the transcript says Tom.  That part of the discussion is about the petitioners looking for SCOTUS to give them an advisory opinion on a matter not before them.  more than half the argument is about the NRA's crappy drafting and failure to amend their claim when NY State stepped in.

What matter remained before them in the Knox case? Mr. Clement made the obvious point that an effort to moot a case at the last minute is going to be an effort involving the question presented.

The "matter not before them" was whether NYC's "continuous and uninterrupted" transport allowance, among other things, was really "everything petitioners wanted and more." It wasn't.

"You can travel and trust us, we won't bother you, even though the law says we can" is not exactly reassuring when it comes from out of control grabbers like the ones who run NYC and who fought hard to keep their rules right up until SCOTUS granted cert.

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

Speaking of quality minds..

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Clement, as I understand New York's scheme, New York has two kinds of licences. It has a premises license and it has a carry license. And you're attacking the premises license scheme on the ground that it doesn't allow you to carry. So why don't you just attack the carry license scheme? If you want to carry, why didn't your clients get a carry license?

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, transporting is a kind of carrying. You take your gun and it goes with you someplace. That's a kind of carrying.

JUSTICE KAGAN: All I'm asking is -is --is there's a premises scheme and a carrying scheme, and your clients want to carry, which suggests that you should have brought a challenge to the carrying scheme if you thought that that was deficient.

She doesn't seem to understand what a "carry" license actually is. Or she believes that one should have a NYC concealed carry permit in order to be "allowed" to take a firearm to a range outside of NYC.

She was feigning ignorance of the fact that it's darn near impossible to get a carry license. A tiny percentage of NYC residents are wealthy and connected enough to get a premises license to exercise their rights and a tiny percentage of those have a carry license. Even being wealthy and connected isn't enough to get a carry license, you have to also be agreeable to the political establishment, which is why John Stossel could not get one after he got death threats.

They use the "good moral character" loophole, but given the NYC history with "stop and frisk" it's not a great leap to think that there are plenty of officials who would agree with this statement:

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

Alito was the only one to really press the question of whether we have ever had indoor militias.
 

Quote

 

MR. DEARING: I think what I'm conceding is that, in the case of a premises license, the Second Amendment has something to say about what effective possession in the home means. And sometimes that may mean that you need to be able to -- that a license holder needs to be able to undertake certain activities outside the home.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if the person is taking the firearm, the handgun, from the home to a firing range, the person is out on the streets of New York, and if -- unless a total ban on taking it to a firing range would be consistent with the Second Amendment, it follows that the Second Amendment, under at least some circumstances, protects the possession of a handgun outside the home. Isn't that correct?

MR. DEARING: I think -- I think that's a fair way to look at it, that -- that --that -- but --but, from our perspective, the right question regarding a premises license is, did the -- did the rule impermissibly burden effective use of the handgun in the premises? In the same way that to get a gun to a premises, you have to get it somewhere outside -- you know, purchase it somewhere outside your premises and bring it there, that certain things that happen outside the home may -- may be integrally related to effective use of a handgun inside the home.

 

Hah! "May be integrally related?" How about: if you can't bring it home, you can't have it at home, so "absolutely is integrally related."

Link to post
Share on other sites

After 5 years of successfully defending NYC's transport rules as "necessary for public safety" we got this yesterday:
 

Quote

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Dearing, are the -- are people in New York less safe now as a result of the enactment of the new city and state laws than they were before?

MR. DEARING: We -- we --no, I don't think so. We made a judgment expressed by our police commissioner that -- that it was consistent with public safety to repeal the prior rule and to move forward without it.

 

Oh. This would have been a lot more credible a few years ago. Yesterday it just looked like they knew all along that their rules were not necessary for public safety.

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

The "matter not before them" was whether NYC's "continuous and uninterrupted" transport allowance, among other things, was really "everything petitioners wanted and more." It wasn't.

DISINFORMATION ALERT (the bolded bit.)   According to Dearborn, no such term exists in the state statute. Hmmm, Clement's latest (eigth?)  case before the SC reeks of dishonesty. This is lame.

Quote

P34

(Dearborn here:) The "continuous and uninterrupted" language cited by my friend is not in the state law. The city acknowledges that. And the city's enforcement position is that coffee stops, bathroom breaks are entirely permissible.

P40

(Dearborn) To -- to turn to -- now to the question of future consequences. We are -- we would -- as I've said, the issue about coffee stops is an entirely feigned dispute.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites