Omne quod audimus est opinio, non res. Omnia videm
You all sure embraced states' rights in the Bruen case. Just as you're willing to embrace Trump on bump stocka, you will embrace absolutely anyone or anything gungrabby, no matter what you might otherwise think.Tom will be along shortly to say that disgusting liberal elitists such as myself will never understand freedom lovin’ stahts rites.
Often? They were required of people who were considered a risk, which suggests to me a minority of people.surety bonds were often required of gunmen
Plaintiffs argue that surety laws are distinguishable because these laws imposed a financial
burden only after “cause has been shown specific to the individual.” Pls.’ Suppl. Br. 4 (emphasis
in original). The Insurance Requirement, they argue, would assume “every person is a danger”
and apply to all San Jose gun owners, regardless of whether they have shown themselves to be
high-risk. Pls.’ Suppl. Br. 4-5. This is certainly a fair distinction between surety laws and the
Insurance Requirement but ultimately one that does not bear upon the metrics identified in Bruen.
142 S. Ct at 2133 (“how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed
self-defense”). First, although the Insurance Requirement applies to all gun owners, the actual
amount of the financial burden (i.e., insurance premiums) involves a risk evaluation that is tailored
to the individual and analogous to “reasonable cause” determinations under surety statutes. See
Stephen G. Gilles & Nelson Lund, Mandatory Liability Insurance for Firearm Owners: Design
Choices and Second Amendment Limits, 14 Engage 18 (2013) (“Competitive pressures would lead
insurance carriers to keep the premiums for low-risk gun owners low, while charging higher
premiums to those who are more likely to cause injuries to other people.”).
(Note: Tom Ray learned of 500 years of (very regular) firearms surety bonds from Joe, on PA.)Often? They were required of people who were considered a risk, which suggests to me a minority of people.
But those bonds came up in NAGR v San Jose
So an insurance company might look, for example, to see whether a person's skin color indicated an immature and volatile propensity toward gun violence. Do we really want that?
This "racist remark" has a context. And the context, two posts earlier, shows Tom gaming responsible stats showing that gun violence is 6x more lethal on blacks than whites. Think Ferguson, my good man. Or think Garfield--Jimi's high school.
Not really. I asked a simple question about gun ownership rates. This was your answer, complete with link back for context:This "racist remark" has a context. And the context, two posts earlier, shows Tom gaming responsible stats showing that gun violence is 6x more lethal on blacks than whites.
The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.
Goodwin ruled this week in a two-count gun indictment. Goodwin found the federal government’s law preventing felons from possessing firearms is constitutional, and even included that in his logic for striking down the statute on obliterating serial numbers. Goodwin’s ruling used as a hinge point a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in a New York gun case, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111.
Under Bruen and in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634-35, the justices said constitutional rights “are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them,” according to Goodwin’s ruling.
That’s left courts to figure out how to apply that standard, and in this case, Goodwin relied heavily on what was in place when the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted in 1791.
And at that time, firearms didn’t even have serial numbers and wouldn’t routinely have them for many decades to come, according to Goodwin.
Hi thereTom. Well, I've been out roaming the hills.Not really. I asked a simple question about gun ownership rates. This was your answer, complete with link back for context:
I'm still not sure we want insurance agents who think that way.
I asked a simple question about gun ownership rates.
Eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York's unconstitutional "proper cause" requirement for conceal-carry licenses, the State responded with even more restrictive legislation, barring all conceal-carry license holders from vast swaths of the State. The complaint and motion in this case focus solely on one aspect of the new legislation, namely, the portion making it a felony for such a license holder to possess a firearm at "any place of worship or religious observation."
Here, the State cites to a handful of enactments in an attempt to meet its "burden" to demonstrate a tradition of accepted prohibitions of firearms in places of worship or religious observation. The notion of a "tradition" is the opposite of one-offs, outliers, or novel enactments. Rather, "tradition" requires "continuity."
These enactments are of unknown duration, and the State has not met is burden to show endurance over time. As a result, the Court is left with a handful of seemingly spasmodic enactments involving a small minority of jurisdictions governing a small minority of population. And they were passed nearly a century after the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791. These outlier enactments also contrast with colonial-era enactments that, in fact, mandated such carry at places of worship. These enactments are far too remote, far too anachronistic, and very much outliers—insufficient, then, in the search for an American tradition….
A federal judge in New York temporarily suspended many parts of the state's new gun restrictions on Monday to allow members of a gun-owners' rights group to continue their lawsuit challenging the new law as unconstitutional.
Judge Glenn Suddaby of the U.S. District Court in Syracuse agreed to issue the order at the request of six New York residents who are members of Gun Owners of America, which competes with the National Rifle Association in political influence.
In Monday's preliminary injunction, Suddaby said New York officials could not compel people applying for a gun license to disclose the handles of their social media accounts or the names and contact details of everyone they live with, major provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act which took effect on Sept. 1. Nor would applicants have to prove their "low melanin content" Suddaby wrote in the 182-page order, a length he ascribed to the new law's "unprecedented constitutional violations."
Today's episode is guest-hosted by my Reason TV colleague Zach Weissmueller. Zach went to Philadelphia to talk with Maj Toure, who runs the Solutionary Center in North Philadelphia. It's a place for locals to learn firearms skills and safety, how to avoid and de-escalate conflicts, and to pick up other life skills ranging from first aid to yoga to phlebotomy. "We hear a lot of people say, 'If these communities would just pull themselves up by the bootstraps,'" says Maj. "Okay, this is the bootstraps."
The Philly native is a hardcore libertarian, founder of the gun rights group Black Guns Matter, and a supporter of the Mises Caucus that recently took control of the Libertarian Party. He tells Reason that libertarians can improve their outreach in urban America by getting behind leaders and organizers who have an intuitive understanding of the needs and concerns of the residents who live there.
The lead plaintiff is Brett Christian, an Erie County resident who has a carry permit but cannot make much use of it because New York has made it a felony for him to possess a handgun in many places he routinely visits. Before that law was enacted, Sinatra notes, Christian "would typically bring [his] firearm with [him] on private property open to the public, including weekly visits to gas stations and monthly visits to hardware stores." That is no longer allowed.
When Christian is "driving or running errands," he is "'unable to take any
bathroom breaks,' pick up food, or purchase gas while carrying his firearm." He
has to "disable and store" his handgun before driving or walking into a parking lot,
which means that he sometimes must "stop carrying for self-defense" before he
"can get physically close enough to see if any 'clear and conspicuous signage' exists." Because New York's law requires Christian to "constantly disarm" while engaged in quotidian activities, he is "left without the ability to defend" himself and is "suffering diminished personal safety on a frequent and ongoing basis."
That situation is not merely inconvenient. It makes a mockery of the right that the Supreme Court upheld in Bruen. While hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are notionally allowed to carry concealed handguns for self-defense, the state has made it difficult or impossible for them to actually do that without risking prosecution.
New York "argues that private property owners have always had the right
to exclude others from their property and [therefore] may exclude those carrying
concealed handguns," Sinatra writes. "But that right has always been one
belonging to the private property owner—not to the State….Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes."
As Sinatra sees it, the Second Amendment requires a default rule that guns are allowed on private property unless the owner says otherwise—the opposite of the rule that New York has established.
For many businesses, Suddaby noted, it is impractical to "give express consent to each license holder on their doorstep other than by posting a sign containing a controversial message that must (by definition) be visible to all persons passing by (including potential 'anti-gun' customers)." One of the plaintiffs in Antonyuk, for example, "runs a small hotel/bed and breakfast for guests and faces a loss of patronage" by "gun owners who wish to travel lawfully with their firearms if he does not post a sign." A sign is the only feasible way to meet New York's requirement because "it is entirely impractical to provide person-by-person 'express consent' to each individual who stops by." At the same time, such a sign is apt to alienate other potential customers.
Suddaby thinks that quandary raises a serious First Amendment issue because it arguably amounts to government-compelled speech. He concluded that the plaintiffs had "a strong likelihood of success" on that claim.
Suddaby said New York's private property rule "appears to be a thinly disguised version" of a policy the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in Bruen.
Do they allow people to have weapons outside the home? If so, I support at least that much.I remember Jeff and Tom were doing their usual #2 Amendment trolling about the war in Ukraine. I then offered that we adopt adopt Ukraine's gun laws. They found some knitting that needed doing right quick.
Dumb opinions, weakly held.
Every time you ask me this, I ask you if the Standard Model is the one with indoor militias or outdoor? I'm still an outdoor militia guy, so if that's what it says, that's what I think too.Bulshitter.
"Falsified History" can be defined by "The Standard Model of the Second Amendment."
Joyce Lee Malcolm invented it. The Libertarian law brief armada flocked to her weak shit in the mid-eighties.
I have asked Dogballs for his accounting of The Standard Model a dozen times.
Tom Ray dare not defend such a poor work, and he can't reject it either, because it is an embarrassing hodgepodge which frames the Heller Decision. Robert Levy, the CATO Charima ( the person who paid for the armada of law briefs as they were written in his 9000 sf Florida condo in the timeframe of the Parker case), sat at the lead counsel table at the Supreme Court. (Source: Tom Diaz)
Tom, if I have any of this wrong, feel free to weigh in on The Standard Model right here.
You can reject some bits, and accept others. But total silence , at this point, is dishonesty by omission.