Heller v. DC being heard today

mr_fabulous

Super Anarchist
3,716
0
JBSF said:
JBSF said:
Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.
The Republicans paid good money for those signs.
yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?
that's what I don't get - they're good people who just trying to get by like everybody else.. What is this expectation based on?
Intimidation. It was absolute in the way it backfired, and likely caused some lasting harm to the GOP for those instigating such a short-sighted action. After the election even the GOP acknowledged the loose cannon hyperbole rolling out of control isn't in the long-term interests of the party.

 

mr_fabulous

Super Anarchist
3,716
0
...You could well argue that those fees+restrictions inhibit your preparation for your lawful exercise of that right. However, a priori, you have many legal alternatives. But those fees+restrictions do not inhibit your right of self defense nor do they inhibit your exercise of that right of self defense if and when that becomes necessary.
Inhibiting preparation to defend yourself is inhibiting your second amendment right to defend yourself, should the need arise. DC's purpose in erecting barriers to gun acquisition is to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry by "opening" the registry in name only, not in fact.
Keep fighting the good fight, Tom. It drives the discussion back to what Scalia said in the Heller decision, which is that the door remains open for the Supreme Court to address in a future case what limitations on Second Amendment rights are considered “permissible.” (Be careful what you wish for.)

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,961
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
...You could well argue that those fees+restrictions inhibit your preparation for your lawful exercise of that right. However, a priori, you have many legal alternatives. But those fees+restrictions do not inhibit your right of self defense nor do they inhibit your exercise of that right of self defense if and when that becomes necessary.
Inhibiting preparation to defend yourself is inhibiting your second amendment right to defend yourself, should the need arise. DC's purpose in erecting barriers to gun acquisition is to continue their unconstitutional gun ban closed registry by "opening" the registry in name only, not in fact.
Keep fighting the good fight, Tom. It drives the discussion back to what Scalia said in the Heller decision, which is that the door remains open for the Supreme Court to address in a future case what limitations on Second Amendment rights are considered “permissible.” (Be careful what you wish for.)
I don't have to be too careful. I started a thread about exploring those limits, starting with whether the second amendment extends beyond the home and out into public spaces like porches and attached garages. Not too many on the other side seem inclined to discuss the questions. Go ahead, scare heck out of me by answering the question!

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
JBSF said:
JBSF said:
Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.
The Republicans paid good money for those signs.
yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?
It's a not an uncommon myth among sadly ignorant and/or racist white people that most blacks are thugs who are afraid of going into a voting place, so it back-fired.

Why do you think voting should be in police stations in urban areas?



Ladysmith Black Mombazo are all over Paul Simon's later albums. He wrote a song called "Outrageous" awhile back.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,961
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
I did not watch the video, but it appears to be a black man singing.

Searching for some relevance to the Heller decision, I came across this excerpt about the discussion of the second amendment rights of newly freed slaves after the Civil War:

3. Post-Civil War Legislation.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment , and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876 (1998) (hereinafter Halbrook); Brief for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae. Since those discussions took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment , they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources. Yet those born and educated in the early 19th century faced a widespread effort to limit arms ownership by a large number of citizens; their understanding of the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment is instructive.

Blacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War. Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Needless to say, the claim was not that blacks were being prohibited from carrying arms in an organized state militia. A Report of the Commission of the Freedmen’s Bureau in 1866 stated plainly: “[T]he civil law [of Kentucky] prohibits the colored man from bearing arms. . . . Their arms are taken from them by the civil authorities… . Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution is infringed.” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236. A joint congressional Report decried:

“in some parts of [south Carolina], armed parties are, without proper authority, engaged in seizing all fire-arms found in the hands of the freemen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The freedmen of South Carolina have shown by their peaceful and orderly conduct that they can safely be trusted with fire-arms, and they need them to kill game for subsistence, and to protect their crops from destruction by birds and animals.” Joint Comm. on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 229 (1866) (Proposed Circular of Brigadier General R. Saxton).

The view expressed in these statements was widely reported and was apparently widely held. For example, an editorial in The Loyal Georgian (Augusta) on February 3, 1866, assured blacks that “[a]ll men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.” Halbrook 19.

Congress enacted the Freedmen’s Bureau Act on July 16, 1866. Section 14 stated:

“[T]he right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery… . ” 14 Stat. 176–177.

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).

Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment . For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: “Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms,’ and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same.” H. R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 7–8 (1871). With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty … under the Constitution” a man’s “right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182 (1866). Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (1866).

It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.
 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
Do you see any reason he might be afraid to sing in a police station, Tom?
What did I say to prompt that question?
Alas, you've lost the context that post of mine was in. Watching the tape might have given you a clue, but you were too busy. Be careful, all that work may turn you into a dull boy. Like the cows say, "always take time to pause and eat the roses".

Ladysmith is a zulu a-capella group, that is a translated version of "How Long Do I Wait For You" and the choreography in the second half is a hoot. Forgot what they call it in Zulu, but a roughly translation is: "The Yoo Hoo Shuffle™.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
Alas, you've lost the context that post of mine was in.
Then I suggest you find it and answer my question.
It's obvious, in context.

BTW, notice there are nine dancers. Nine is a number that figures prominently in Zulu shamanism. Perhaps they are not as different from us as some like to think.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
I was nudging you back into context, as the black face caused you to leap to the conclusion it was about American slavery. It was a bump-post.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,961
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
Making registration to exercise a right difficult is bad, sometimes... Sometimes it is even racist!

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.
I agree with the League and the federal judge mentioned that making the exercise of a right inconvenient can unduly restrict the right.

There is no reason that a city the size of DC should have only one gun dealer, nor any good reason the sole dealer should be located in the police station. They are using zoning laws and the refusal to issue business permits to unduly discourage gun ownership, just as they are using needless and onerous restrictions on registration to continue a de facto gun ban closed registry.
Are you mad that I agree with the League of Women Voters or something, Mark? Why keep me guessing about what I posted to prompt your question? Is providing a quote hard? Or maybe impossible?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,961
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
A gun registry has no impact on your 2nd amendment rights.
A closed one does, as the topic case found.

"Opening" it only to those who can afford to make multiple trips to the police station and pay hundreds in associated costs impacts everyone, especially poor people, and is not justified by any compelling governmental interest, so the current DC laws do impact second amendment rights and are unconstitutional.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
Making registration to exercise a right difficult is bad, sometimes... Sometimes it is even racist!

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
In 2011 Republicans, who had super majorities in both chambers of the legislature, passed HB 1355, which curtailed early voting days from 14 to eight; greatly proscribed the activities of voter registration organizations like the League of Women Voters; and made it harder for voters who had changed counties since the last election to cast ballots, a move that affected minorities proportionately more than whites. The League and others challenged the law in court, and a federal judge threw out most of the provisions related to voter registration organizations.
I agree with the League and the federal judge mentioned that making the exercise of a right inconvenient can unduly restrict the right.

There is no reason that a city the size of DC should have only one gun dealer, nor any good reason the sole dealer should be located in the police station. They are using zoning laws and the refusal to issue business permits to unduly discourage gun ownership, just as they are using needless and onerous restrictions on registration to continue a de facto gun ban closed registry.
Are you mad that I agree with the League of Women Voters or something, Mark? Why keep me guessing about what I posted to prompt your question? Is providing a quote hard? Or maybe impossible?
Nope. I had been unaware of that, actually.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
I thought that might have been the lost context you wrote about. Shall I guess again, or will you tell me what I wrote to prompt your question?
It wasn't what you said, it was what you cut and pasted, which had nothing to do with anything in my post, which was in the context of being afraid to vote in police stations. Same thing applies, I guess, on being able to sing in police stations, so I went with the flow.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Super Anarchist
60,961
1,625
Punta Gorda FL
It wasn't what you said, it was what you cut and pasted, which had nothing to do with anything in my post, which was in the context of being afraid to vote in police stations. Same thing applies, I guess, on being able to sing in police stations, so I went with the flow.
I thought you were talking about racism, and considered the history of racism in this country as it relates to the thread topic to be relevant.

Maybe this is the context that was lost?

JBSF said:
Because in the case of DC requiring a wait of months, multiple trips to the police station to see the only gun dealer in town, and hundreds in costs and fees, what I see is a clear effort to defy the Supreme Court's order forcing DC to end their gun ban reopen their gun registry, and no reason offered as to why it should take that long or cost that much (or, for that matter, why a city so large should have only one gun dealer and why he should be located in the police station.)

Rules that are made just to restrict the exercise of our rights are not OK.
I think that all voter registration and polling places in urban inner cities should be inside police stations. I wonder what effect that would have on voter turnout there?
That would probably be considered racist when it comes to voting. Not so much when it comes to guns.
If so, my comment was in relation to the opinion that the League of Women Voters and I share about rules that disproportionately affect minorities. Getting back to the thread topic, many poor people in DC are black and poor people are less able to afford multiple trips to the police station and hundreds of dollars in fees to exercise their second amendment rights, so it's another case of gun control rules that disproportionately affect minorities.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,855
JBSF said:
JBSF said:
Probably for about the same reason that billboards touting that illegal voting is a crime was thought to suppress the black vote.
The Republicans paid good money for those signs.
yes, they did. Nothing like a PSA that states the truth. Why would it possibly dissuade black voters from going to the booth?
It's a not an uncommon myth among sadly ignorant and/or racist white people that most blacks are thugs who are afraid of going into a voting place, so it back-fired.

Why do you think voting should be in police stations in urban areas?



Bump.

 
Top