Jump to content

Heller v. DC being heard today


Recommended Posts

On 11/16/2018 at 6:27 AM, jocal505 said:

You have been well-challenged by what I read.

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

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

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 664
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's interminable. And repetitious as hell. Tom's like a 33 rpm record stuck on the runout groove. No music, just "kchik" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over a

I didn't use the right terminology - looking back on it, that phrase has loaded meaning to some folks.  More accurately I should say that I believe people are over-valuing what Scalia actually said an

Posted Images

11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

You and I are good now.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Okay, but there may be something to learn.

  • 1. The historical timeframe of "well regulated" valued, and needed, and knew, capable militias.
  • 2. Run what you brung (the Virginia militia's sucessful, but  half-assed attack on the French foreign power), had already failed Washington. They walked home with no gunz.
  • 3. Planning an armed rabble does not fit into these historical guideposts. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
11 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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


You mean you finally read it? Wow! Congratulations.

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

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

You mean you finally read it? Wow! Congratulations.

You got screwed by my hobby reading.

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

  • Stuff like "bear arms" meant military function 97% of the time. (Source: Kozuskanich)
  • Scalia quotes Loius Schwoerer at least 3X, yet she is definitve in debunking the Standard Model
  • Scalia violates Justice Blackstone's actual positions
  • Scalia very ignorantly denies the colonial relevance of the Statute of Northampton
  • Joyce Lee Malcolm was rejected by the vetted community of historic scholars, WITHIN MCDONALD
  • Scalia spoke of the importance of prefatory clauses in other writing
  • Interpersonal "confrontations" were not a concern of the founding fathers
  • Fucking "hearth and home," mate? That idea and term is not in the Second.
  • "Originalism" is a conservative's way of saying whatever a conservative wants to say, based on history
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2018 at 2:18 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
On 3/18/2008 at 12:35 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:
SC-Texas said:
REmember, its about your constitutional rights.

 

1st & 4th amendments aren't any more important than the 2nd.

 

If they can weaken or marginalize one, they can do the same to the others.

 

Its not about "romantic and fanciful" tyranny.

That's pretty much where I'm at now.

Ten years later, I'm still there.

More on Heller: From Theory To Doctrine:

 

Quote

 

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

Ten years later, I'm still there.

More on Heller: From Theory To Doctrine:

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

 

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

Quote

Item: Tom predicts ten years to settle second amendment

Post 58 Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Gun Ban thread

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

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

Quote

Ten years later, I'm still there.

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Then the CATO writers step in.

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

    III. Underenforcement of the right to bear arms

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

     

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Happy New Year,  bull gaytor was a contender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

 with the usual lack of a source?

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

The key voices:

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

 

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

The passers by were passing by

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

10 hours ago, jocal505 said:

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

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

Or are you claiming that libertarians are "racist"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 3/20/2019 at 3:06 PM, Left Shift said:
On 3/20/2019 at 8:15 AM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

D1rRQq1WoAAiFuf.jpg

Sure!  If your a member of an organized militia adhering to Congressionally enacted regulations.  


You mean like Jack Miller?

Or possibly Dred Scott?

Catch up. Lawrence Tribe figured out that "the people" means "the people" before the Supreme Court did in the case of noted militiaman Dick Heller and his 9 round revolver.

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

The 2nd Amendment was designed to enable a new nation without an organised army to fight back if the Brits decided to take back their colony.

"...a well-regulated militia" does not translate as a bunch of random civilians


"the people" does, however, translate as "the people."

As in, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You've been fed a line of BS that officially died with the topic case but really died when Lawrence Tribe altered his constitutional law textbook to reject it.

Even the minority agreed:

 

Quote

 

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

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

 

That's why Justice Taney was worried so many years ago that Dred Scott might be able to "keep and carry arms" if he were considered a citizen.

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.

Our Supreme Court knew in 1856 what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" meant to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up. So "the people" have the right as individuals. 

I don't think the founding fathers would have intended that if they saw some of "the people" today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
On 10/24/2018 at 8:27 PM, jocal505 said:

a landed protestant, leading a posse, could pack weaponry in merry old England, but joe schmoe could not

@bpm57. You asked for this yesterday, after pestering me for days about Sir John Knight. You and I had a worthy historical discussion a year ago. Why did a sharp guy like you forget these facts, in a year? 

The cuts and pastes are because of thick-headedness.

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 1/30/2018 at 10:12 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

MADD was successful in changing behavior by addressing the root causes of drunken driving rather than going after the enablers.  They did it with a patient campaign of education and public awareness along with a push for legislation that increased punishment for bad behavior. 

You have called for treating gun control based on the way we have treated drunk driving in lots of threads over the years.

Be careful what you wish for. Not sure this was what you had in mind...

A DUI in Pennsylvania could cost you your Second Amendment rights
 

Quote

 

A drunken driving conviction could mean losing the right to buy and own firearms in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Court of Appeals has decided.

The precedent-setting opinion handed down Friday hinges on the federal government’s definition of a “serious crime” — the level a crime must reach to trigger an individual being barred from buying firearms.

Under federal law, a serious crime is one that can carry a state-prison sentence of two or more years.

In the case of Raymond Holloway Jr. of Montgomery County, that came in the form of a DUI.

Holloway tried in 2016 to buy a firearm and was told a 2005 DUI conviction meant he was barred from doing so, according to the court opinion penned by Judge Patty Shwartz. Holloway filed a lawsuit the following year, suing the U.S. attorney general, the FBI and other officials, claiming a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

Shwartz noted a prior Supreme Court ruling that described drunken drivers — specifically with a blood-alcohol content much higher than the legal limit and those who chronically drive under the influence — as “the most dangerous offenders.”

“Thus,” she wrote, “all branches of the federal government agree that DUIs are dangerous, and those who present a danger may be disarmed.”

..

Judge D. Michael Fisher, in his dissenting opinion for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote that “serious” in the context of disarming citizens after convictions is not the same as “serious” in the ordinary context.

“Drunken driving is dangerous,” Fisher wrote, “and calling it not ‘serious’ when it comes to the Second Amendment in no way detracts from its ‘seriousness’ in the ordinary understanding of that word.”

...

 

Do we want people who present a danger voting?

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

Do we want people who present a danger voting?

This is hyperbole, a few different ways. You are trying to equate (individual) gun rights with voting rights. This could only be based on Heller, which only addressed indoor gunz, and which has been used against you in 95% of the court cases, far more than it has worked in your favor. 

Secondly, Heller is on shaky ground, due to its wrongass definition of the term to "bear arms," and because of its sketchy, contextual definition of The People.

Thirdly, to equate guns and voting is a false equivalence, since the first has a violent platform, and the second is the FF's antidote to generic violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 3:01 PM, bpm57 said:
On 1/2/2019 at 4:51 AM, jocal505 said:

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

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

I'm saying that 1)Dick Heller is very stuck on guns, and that 2)he race-baited random African American strangers in public, while being recorded by a pro reporter, and 3) I am suggesting "birds of a feather," in the Libertarian corner.

 

The link is from @Shootist Jeff , in his history of gun control. (In this Jeffie thread, Jeffie defines gun control, in flat-earth terms, as race-based. Then he splits.) Key scholars and players from both sides have their say in this podcast. Here's Dick. YCMTSU.

Quote

Dick Heller goes race-baiting, in an interview, on the steps of the SC

For @bpm57, we now share an account of what a gun-loving wild card Dick Heller is, and was:

 

At 44:50,  Heller won't shut up for the CATO attorneys, during  SC presentation.

At 39:17, Dick Heller is chanting "Freedom? Freedom! wow! Let's hear it!"...to white passers-by.

(Around 40:00) As African American citizens pass by, a plantation slur from Heller is repeated.

(Around 40:30) The WNYC reporter points out the gaffe, to Mr. Heller. Heller defends using the term plantation in the situation.

 

Dick Heller @ SC interview.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/27/2019 at 2:06 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:
Quote

DOGBALLS, HE LOVE THE SMELL OF THE NAACP IN THE MORNING

That's why Justice Taney was worried so many years ago that Dred Scott might be able to "keep and carry arms" if he were considered a citizen.

RACE BAITER ALERT ^^^

I'll take number eight for fifty dollars, ALECX.  

Quote

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

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, de-humanization, sheer scapegoating, and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  9. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  10. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple violence epidemics), the NAACP;
  11. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  12. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

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

2)he race-baited random African American strangers in public, while being recorded by a pro reporter

Oh no! What did he say? Something like this?

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.


Why should anyone listen to a person who makes such bigoted statements about race?

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

Oh no! What did he say? Something like this?


Why should anyone listen to a person who makes such bigoted statements about race?

 

3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING

;) What did I win?

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

We really can't help it if using your own words is considered "race-baiting", Joe.

To each, his own sphere. We each will settle our inner self at a certain level. 

IMG_1003_(1).JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
12 hours ago, Jules said:
On 3/28/2020 at 7:56 PM, Steam Flyer said:

The Constitution grants the rights to keep and bear arms.

I suppose then that right would be satisfied once a person has a single arm they are bearing. 

Or should we take the plural literally and say the bearing of two arms satisfies that right?


That argument was considered and rejected in the topic case.

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

That argument was considered and rejected in the topic case.

I disagree, Tom.  Once you own (bear) a single gun (arm) your rights under the 2nd Amendment have been honored.  I'll even skip the well formed militia part but as long as you own a single firearm, you can't bitch about your 2nd Amendment rights being violated. 

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

I disagree, Tom.  Once you own (bear) a single gun (arm) your rights under the 2nd Amendment have been honored.  I'll even skip the well formed militia part but as long as you own a single firearm, you can't bitch about your 2nd Amendment rights being violated. 

Owning is more "keeping" than "bearing" to me, but then I have some wacky thoughts about "bearing" arms, the most notable being my belief that we had outdoor militias in the founding era. I just don't buy the TeamD/gungrabby argument that the second amendment is only about indoor guns.

But that aside, your argument is flawed for reasons I explained in the panicdemic thread about guns. Here's part of that post:

On 3/29/2020 at 6:12 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

9th Circuit in 2016 Teixiera v Alameda County

Quote

 

...

At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, which McDonald held applied the Second Amendment against the States, at least some American jurists simply assumed that the “right to keep arms, necessarily involve[d] the right to purchase them.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871).


Since 1871, our courts have repeatedly recognized that "necessary involvement." The fact that a person has purchased a gun does not mean the right to buy and keep (and bear) one goes away, any more than having one abortion means a person has no right to another.

If Bloomberg has already $poken to the tune of a hundred million, does that mean he has no right to quintuple down on his inve$tment just because he already $poke?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Tom Ray has the mind of a monarch. He can decree who is a reader, and who is not.

I once made a serious effort to track down, and to read up on, the finest Libertarian history scholars, meaning Halbrook, Kates, Malcom, Hardy, and a few others. Their work was a sham. (Flat-out, Heller mis-represented the positions of Blackstone and Lois Schwoerer. Shameful shit. )

Tom's solution? I was declared a non-reader.


Have you read the Heller case, or even the Miller one yet, or are you still a non-reader?

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


Have you read the Heller case, or even the Miller one yet, or are you still a non-reader?

You need another Roger Stone tatoo on your ass.

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

You need another Roger Stone tatoo on your ass.

I haven't digested my breakfast yet.  Please be considerate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

D.C. Prosecutions Highlight the Connection Between Gun Control and Racial Disparities
 

Quote

 

An anti-gun initiative in Washington, D.C., that was backed by Mayor Muriel Bowser is attracting criticism because it has focused on predominantly black parts of the city. The controversy over the program, which prosecutes residents for violating the federal ban on firearm possession by people with felony records, illustrates the tension between two major items on the progressive agenda: strengthening gun control and reducing racial disparities in law enforcement. Those goals are hard to reconcile because enforcing firearm laws has a disproportionate impact on African Americans.

Originally that was by design. Modern gun control laws have their roots in Southern states' efforts to disarm freedmen, depriving them of a constitutional right that Chief Justice Roger Taney, author of the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, warned black people would enjoy if they were recognized as citizens.

...

Bowser, who is herself African American, presumably was not driven by racial animus when she backed the D.C. initiative, which aims to reduce gun crimes by disarming and locking up people thought likely to commit them. But the racially disproportionate results were predictable, since one-third of African-American men have felony records (compared to 8 percent of the general population) and police and prosecutors were apt to concentrate on high-crime, predominantly black neighborhoods.

That is what happened, as federal prosecutors recently acknowledged. Instead of targeting illegal gun owners throughout the city, as originally advertised, the program has focused entirely on three police districts that overlap with Ward 5, which is 64 percent black; Ward 7 (92 percent black); and Ward 8 (89 percent black). By comparison, blacks represent 44 percent of the District's total population.

The program "exclusively—and now we know, by design—targets District residents of color via specific police districts," D.C. Council Member Charles Allen complained in a press release. "It is one more policy defaulting to harsh penalties on Black residents whose neighborhoods have historically been underinvested in and overpoliced. We must end this policy. It is taking us in the wrong direction."

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, an elected official who enforces the D.C. Code, was likewise appalled by the "discriminatory application" of federal gun charges. According to the Post, D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham said "he was unaware the initiative was being implemented in only certain parts of the District."

Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney, "criticized the program as implemented, saying he began a review when he took over the office in May and ended the program's geographic focus last week."

...

This is what gun control looks like in practice. When the New York Police Department tried to reduce violent crime by stopping pedestrians, questioning them, and patting them down for weapons, the overwhelming majority of the people subjected to such treatment were black or Hispanic. And when they were frisked, which happened about half the time, police almost never found guns and rarely discovered weapons of any kind. That track record contradicted the pretense that the pat-downs were based on the "reasonable suspicion" that the Supreme Court says the Fourth Amendment requires. But according to Michael Bloomberg, a leading gun control advocate who was New York's mayor when these stops skyrocketed, the whole point was not to find guns but to deter young men from carrying them to begin with.

Given these realities, it is more than a little puzzling that people who are concerned about racial disparities, potentially deadly police encounters, and the life obstacles created by felony records would advocate new gun controls and stronger enforcement of existing restrictions. If you worry about those problems, why support policies that are bound to make them worse?

 

It's really not all that puzzling. It's a matter of priorities and nothing has a higher priority than gungrabbiness.

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

D.C. Prosecutions Highlight the Connection Between Gun Control and Racial Disparities
 

It's really not all that puzzling. It's a matter of priorities and nothing has a higher priority than gungrabbiness.

reason/com again, and they are (conveniently) missing the big picture.

  • The distribution of guns itself has a racial outcome.
  • Then, the armed "confrontation" logic (of the Heller case) has a racial outcome.
  • As it pans out in WA DC, the management of the gun proliferation proceeds to have a third, negative, racial outcome.
  • Hmmm, new video phone evidence indicates that even armed police enforcement exacerbates the racial problem, unacceptably.

The gun situation in the USA is a lose-lose-lose-lose for persons of color, dogballs.

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

reason/com again, and they are (conveniently) missing the big picture.

  • The distribution of guns itself has a racial outcome.
  • Then, the armed "confrontation" logic (of the Heller case) has a racial outcome.
  • As it pans out in WA DC, the management of the gun proliferation proceeds to have a third, negative, racial outcome.
  • Hmmm, new video phone evidence indicates that even armed police enforcement exacerbates the racial problem, unacceptably.

The gun situation in the USA is a lose-lose-lose-lose for persons of color, dogballs.

I learned by looking into one of your sources that

Quote

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

If it's true that

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.


Then why do black people own guns at about half the rate of whites? Do they need to have more guns distributed to them or something?

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

I learned by looking into one of your sources that

If it's true that


Then why do black people own guns at about half the rate of whites? Do they need to have more guns distributed to them or something?

How clever, and how Jim Crow. We have a number eleven...and we have a local race-baiter pattern. 

Quote

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

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  4. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  5. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating, and the NAACP; 
  6. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  7. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  8. Judge Taney is coming, twenty-seven times, the NAACP;
  9. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  10. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  11. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  12. Did I mention the NAACP… for166 mentions?

 

 

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

 


why do black people own guns at about half the rate of whites? 

 black peoples' guns are taken from them by cops so they have something to toss on the ground next to unarmed 'perps'

they don't tell you that at Reason?

 

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

 black peoples' guns are taken from them by cops so they have something to toss on the ground next to unarmed 'perps'

they don't tell you that at Reason?

 

The reporters at Reason seem blissfully unaware of stuff you make up so they never mention it. Besides, you're responding to my citation of Joe's sources, not Reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Lied on a tax return? No gun rights for the rest of your life!
 

Quote

 

The Third Circuit has issued an opinion that has received little attention over the right to bear arms, but it should. The decision in Folajtar v. The Attorney General of the United States may be one of the most perfectly tailored case for major Supreme Court decision. Indeed, the only thing lacking from the 2-1 decision is a mailing label directly to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In ruling that a non-violent tax conviction can result in the denial of gun ownership, the panel presents a clean case to further define the contours of the individual rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

...

So what now? It is hard to ignore the analogy to one of now Justice Barrett’s prior decisions as an appellate judge in Kanter v. Barr. Rickey Kanter was convicted of one count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts. The Seventh Circuit panel split 2-1 with Barrett in dissent. Focusing on the “history and tradition” of such restrictions, Barrett also took on the voting rights and jury service point with a key distinction:

“The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[ ] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.” See Saul Cornell, A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment , 22 LAW & HIST. REV. 161, 165 (2004). For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice…

Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 582–86, 128 S.Ct. 2783.”

That is why the Third Circuit case could be so important. It is Kanter revisited but Barrett is now a justice, not just a judge.  Her view is also shared by new colleagues like Justice Brett Kavanaugh in his own dissent as a judge on the D.C. Circuit when a panel upheld the ban on semi-automatic rifles and the possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition (as well as certain registration requirements).

If Barrett and Kavanaugh can get two other justices to accept certiorari, this could be a decision that approaches Heller itself in constitutional importance.

Assuming that you accept that this is an individual right, I have serious reservations with the sweeping analysis of the Third Circuit.  The panel imposed little burden on Congress to extinguish an individual right other than its own categorical declaration. While no right is absolute, most of us would be outraged if such a low burden was imposed on other individual rights under Constitution.  There is a good-faith debate over whether this is an individual right, but the question raised by this case is whether, as an individual right, it can so easily be set aside — particularly under a law that preceded the Heller decision.  Two justices are likely clearing their desks in anticipation of the arrival of this case from the Third Circuit.


 

I must have missed the "good faith debate" he talks about.I thought this line from the minority in the topic case laid that nonsense to rest:

 

Quote

 

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

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

 

He's right that there would be howls of outrage if the nebulous standard applied to the second amendment were applied to other rights, such as the right to vote. Restoring the rights of felons is a big issue, but by "rights" many people seem to mean only one: voting. Ignore the others and set a precedent that will reach out and grab the right you cherish.

 

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

Lied on a tax return? No gun rights for the rest of your life!
 

I must have missed the "good faith debate" he talks about.I thought this line from the minority in the topic case laid that nonsense to rest:

 

He's right that there would be howls of outrage if the nebulous standard applied to the second amendment were applied to other rights, such as the right to vote. Restoring the rights of felons is a big issue, but by "rights" many people seem to mean only one: voting. Ignore the others and set a precedent that will reach out and grab the right you cherish.

 

I am thankful for the Heller decision today, seriously. Heller drew a line, containing gun "rights" to hearth and home, and, in a second blessing, Heller defined battle guns as over the top.

 

Tom Ray. if you need our "rights" dissected, here you go. It is pretty easy to see why these rights are not the same. Here is a clear distinction, now even you can fathom the reason that guns and voting are made of very different substance:

Let's say a perp is sitting in his jail cell. He truly has a right to many votes in there. But he does not have a right to have a single gun in there. (The gun always was a privilege, eh?)

 

That was easy, since you peddle a flakey and false equivalence. Guns do not share the character of voting, and guns are merely force, the antithesis of voting. 

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

Heller defined battle guns as over the top.

Not going to actually quote Heller doing so? The actual ruling, not a wire article or the Kolbe gymnastics.

Still don't understand that Kolbe dissent, do you? You avoided addressing it, even after your "wElL wHaT dOeS iT sAy? QuOtE iT" act.

You know, that "law of the land" case heard by the 4th circuit. Sometime maybe you will explain how the 4th circuit sets "the law of the land". Just making a statement like that speaks to a serious misunderstanding of the federal court system.

4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Heller drew a line, containing gun "rights" to hearth and home

It did? I must of missed the Heller question that even addressed carry. Please point out where it does.

You once again seem confused about the question being addressed in Heller, and what the ruling says.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

And that Possession of High Capacity Feeding Device is rank malarkey if you ask Tom.

Here's the complaint:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/church-proud-boys.pdf


There are five counts and that's not one of them, nor mentioned anywhere I could find, so yes, I think you're full of malarkey again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2020 at 8:32 AM, bpm57 said:

Not going to actually quote Heller doing so? The actual ruling, not a wire article or the Kolbe gymnastics.

What gymnastics? Kolbe blipped off Heller. The Heller logic rejected dangerous and unusual weapons, such as M-16's, and the like. Though reaching in many areas, Justice Scalia introduced, then busted, battle guns, as such.  Kolbe merely quoted this, and stood on this.

Kolbe's very foundation was the Heller case. And the Heller case took care to honor castle doctrine. Let's continue.

 

Quote
On 11/26/2020 at 8:32 AM, bpm57 said:

 

On 11/26/2020 at 3:27 AM, jocal505 said:

Heller drew a line, containing gun "rights" to hearth and home

It did? I must of missed the Heller question that even addressed carry. Please point out where it does.

You once again seem confused about the question being addressed in Heller, and what the ruling says.

 

Okay, bpm. This is what the ruling says. This is Scalia, doing his summary.

Quote

  SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER  certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute (edit. the home) —would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bpm57. Here's my point. Scalia had to stay in his lane for this 5-4 ruling. Heller had to draw a line for the rights it granted Dick Heller. The line was based on (traditional) castle doctrine, aka hearth and home. The Heller summary drew a line, one short of sanctioning DH's gun out-of-doors.

 Justice Kennedy drew some parameters for his vote, and this "indoor" line was probably one of them. The battle guns may have been another.

 

Things may change, but outdoor gun rights are yet to be determined. And indoor battle guns have no constitutional protection, the way things stand, based on Kolbe and Heller. Happy New Year.

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

Judge rules DC liable for wrongful arrests under overturned gun ban
 

Quote

 

A federal judge on Wednesday found that the District of Columbia is liable for wrongfully arresting six people accused of violating its laws on carrying handguns in public.

...

"In sum, plaintiffs were arrested, detained, and had their guns seized under a gun control regime that completely banned carrying handguns in public. That fact is undisputed," he added.

One of the plaintiffs is North Carolina nurse Maggie Smith, who was pulled over by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) during a traffic stop in June of 2014. According to court documents, Smith "promptly informed" the officer that she was carrying a pistol that was licensed in her home state. Smith was arrested for carrying a pistol and was held overnight in D.C. jail.

Though the charges brought against her were ultimately dropped months after she was arrested, her gun still remains in police custody.

Another plaintiff, Gerard Cassagnol of Maryland, was also arrested after being pulled over by MPD. Cassagnol informed officers that he had a firearm locked in a safe in his trunk and gave the officers the combination. He was held in D.C. jail for two nights.

Again, the charges brought against Cassagnol were ultimately dropped, but he was terminated from his job after his arrest and his gun still remains in police custody.

The three gun laws that the six plaintiffs were arrested under have all since been repealed.

...

 

The charges were dropped and the laws repealed, but Maggie Smith and Gerard Cassagnol both sound like really dangerous individuals so it's a good thing DC still has their guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

I wonder if Tommy Gun would still be as mouthy if he didn't have a keyboard or his 'tools' to hide behind.

It's interminable. And repetitious as hell. Tom's like a 33 rpm record stuck on the runout groove. No music, just "kchik" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

I wonder if Tommy Gun would still be as mouthy if he didn't have a keyboard or his 'tools' to hide behind.

If someone doesn't speak out, we could wind up like Australia, with out of control gun grabbers confiscating disabled gun collections from museums and no one willing to say why this is "common sense" gun control. I'd rather avoid that fate.

I wonder if you'd be as mouthy if your screen name list included your real name, as mine does?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

On 8/19/2021 at 7:27 AM, Excoded Tom said:

It is nice that The People are so well regulated that even when hundreds of heavily armed ones engaged in a nincomcoup, they shot exactly no one.

  

14 hours ago, LB 15 said:
21 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

That's nice, but a federal appeals court rated it true enough.

Federal appeals court preserves administration’s ability to use Title 42 to expel migrant families

 

Yes Tom but your courts have also ruled that a 230 year amendment to your constitution is still somehow relevant today. However you gun nuts need to get your shit together. The 2A clearly states that an angry armed mob are supposed to be 'well regulated', but when your mates stormed the Capital Building, it was a shit fight.

You need to be true to the founding fathers intentions Tommy gun.

Hah! Do you really think I'm stupid enough to talk about guns in Corona Anarchy? I know that kind of thing will be tolerated for grabbers but not for my elk around here. Much like the mods here have tolerated it when Sloopy and Ishmael brought gun politics to Cruising Anarchy, I know better than to think the same behavior would be tolerated from me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...