Uncooperative Californicators

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
This quote is from the last page of the Stoopid law thread. After Tom set up and encouraged lawbreaking in CT and NY for three years, the SAFE Act was finally upheld.

See the jibberish, examine a sham. After Tom had howled that a panicky, secret midnight special session had jammed this legislation in CT, the upper courts upheld the AW ban. ..
When are you going to start getting basic facts right?

In NY, the legislature used emergency rules to bypass debate and pass the SAFE Act. But NY is not CT. The confiscation program in CT was not passed using emergency rules.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
When are you going to start getting basic facts right?

In NY, the legislature used emergency rules to bypass debate and pass the SAFE Act. But NY is not CT. The confiscation program in CT was not passed using emergency rules.
Thanks for the correction of minor, inconsequential details, Tom. The Circuit Court in that region combines both NY and CT. And it supported both laws after review, and long after any Sandy Hook "do something" panic. This is the law of the land now.  

You rode into the sunset, singing a Libertarian ditty. Your cheap jingo was to equate the AW ban to a victory over seven round limits. You lost big, posted a dishonest and incomplete account for the cheap seaters, and slithered away.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. Cops enforcing firearm laws they don't have to follow. 

Those cops should just not enforce them, we all take an oath to the constitution, this is unconstitutional and any cop that arrests someone for a law that they themselves wouldn't follow is BS.
Help me out. Am I reading your words correctly?

I want to know how the hell this works. CA officers hop out of bed in the morning, execute some means to hide personal AW's in CA, then roll out to fail to enforce the CA law on their beats, based on personal interpretations of constitutionality. Did I sum up Officer Green's POV correctly?

Oswald for Boothy.PNG

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
random said:
You posted it as supposed proof that more guns do not kill more people.  When I asked you to explaining the table you had no idea how those numbers were defined.  But that did not stop you from repeatedly posting it.

You still have no idea, but you still defend it because it looks 'sciencey' but it complete fabricated bullshit, like everything else you post.

I submitted this Your Honour, as evidence for the prosecution that Tom Ray knowingly posts misinformation, he is a disinformation agent for the gun lobby as this proves.  I rest my case.
Exhibit 2,673

Post 163, Highland Park Thread

 On 5/27/2015 at 1:34 AM, Tom Ray said: No, I have never advocated arming anyone
After hard work telling falsehoods all day, Tom relaxes at night mis-quoting case law, tossing racial zingers, and protecting grannie's AW.  I wonder about the Pooplius thought process now; The Tom Ray thread features a few collections of past fibs.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because random says so. Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
Posting data from the US Census is fibbing because random says so. Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.
You are such a dumbshit that your handiwork factors strangulations and poisonings against gun violence laws. Jesus Christ, Tom, try slinking away, or mentioning confiscation or something. You can't defend such a piece of shit as Brady's Best. Be classy like Arthur Kellerman was, and fix the thing, before cherry picking it into nonsense.

Mr. Science guy who thinks those jets were just distractions when they hit the buildings on 9/11. YCMTSU.
What a petty little man. Hide the junior sailors in the local bay.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
Uncooperative Federal Judge

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.
We know from proposals in NY, WA, FL, and elsewhere that the real number that currently defines a "high" capacity magazine is seven, not ten. But that's only because they haven't tried five yet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
Moderate said:
The Supreme Court does

(Moderate is responding here to Jocal to V Green: This law is not unconstitutional. You don't determine constitutionality, Officer.. The Ninth Circuit does.
Wrong. Supreme Court didn't determine squat over Peruta vs San Diego last week, did it? After mulling for 11 weels.  Did they accept Drake vs Jejerian? Neither. Until they loosen gun laws more, assuming they do, the circuit court rulings are the law of the land.

We're discussing AW's, right? The SC only handles contrasting circuit court rulings. There are NO favorable rulings to contrast the four circuits which banned "Modern Sporting Rifles." How long will it take to get to the SC? Some while. And the evidence against AW's will probably compile, not diminish. in the interim.

The courts are not dazzled by bumper stickers, or by distractions on the third grader trail.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
random said:
Still waiting Tom old mate.
Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
The judge's injunction mentioned above.
 

As the Supreme Court recognized a decade before Heller, “[g]uns in general are not ‘deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials.’” Staples v. United States

...

  It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem, while at the same time burdening the constitutional rights of other California law-abiding responsible citizen-owners of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
The part at the end on takings was interesting. Even if the court accepts the "dubious" claim that the banned magazines are a public nuisance, he makes the case that Cooperative Californicators who turn in their magazines should be compensated.

In a similar vein, the Supreme Court holds that a law enacted pursuant to the state’s “police powers to enjoin a property owner from activities akin to public nuisances” is not immune from scrutiny under the regulatory takings doctrine.  Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 1003, 1020-27 (1992).  The Court reasoned that it was true “[a] fortiori” that the “legislature’s recitation of a noxious-use justification cannot be the basis for departing from our categorical rule that total regulatory takings must be compensated.”
There are other cases cited saying that banning "dangerous" guns is not a taking that must be compensated but those cases are different because they're not about the state taking away arms that are currently legally owned.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
The judge's injunction mentioned above.
 

The part at the end on takings was interesting. Even if the court accepts the "dubious" claim that the banned magazines are a public nuisance, he makes the case that Cooperative Californicators who turn in their magazines should be compensated.
"dubious"     Remove the quotations.

You read some court briefs, don'tcha Tom? You claim to. Most of the briefs about LCM's document the running, measurable social danger of these devices. The judges note the predominant numbers as evidence, discuss the angles, then justify restricting LCM's based on that. Even Mother Jones is quoted by these judges. No doubt is involved when one looks at the pattern and outcomes.

There are other cases cited saying that banning "dangerous" guns is not a taking that must be compensated but those cases are different because they're not about the state taking away arms that are currently legally owned
"dangerous"   Remove the quotations. One AW court ruled that the public fear alone, public perception, justified banning the guns. 

 Yet may an affray be without worde or blow given as if a man shall sh[o]w himself furnished with armour or weapon, which is not usually worne and borne, it will strike a feare to others that be not armed as he is: and therefore both the Statute of Northampton . . . made against the wearing of Armour and weapon and the Writte thereupon grounded, doe speake of it, by the words, effrey del pays , an, in terrorem populi .23
More disinformation. Are you taking the position that AW guns and LCM's are not dangerous? What about the facts and occurances in the briefs in the four circuit courts which banned AW's for cause? Should we review that, long text? 

As to your compensation plea, you have a point. But let me summarize what happened here.

The gun lobby had poor sales, so in the eighties they began hyping the general public into buying AW's. Individuals of a certain elk herd bought millions of them, until 1% of the population (a minority) owned three each. Note: Jeffie owns dozens of LCM's.

 Unrelated personal angst factors developed, and the battle guns began to be turned on the public during personal grievances or personal aggravation. Informed areas began to control the dangerous devices. Citizens were faced with becoming part of the solution, for the benefit of the broader society. The elk herd with the AW's,  consumers composing 1% of the elk, wanted their money back, from the endangered 99% of the herd.

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
Show me where I claimed they made it, Mr. Science Guy.

I posted data from the US Census and you asked about their definitions and declared the data "debunked" when I didn't know them off the top of my head.

This method of "debunking" does explain how you fall for the 9/11 conspiracy crap. Really, a nanothermite-seeking autopilot built by aliens in cahoots with Saddam is not all that plausible.
Here's the thread.  Your children and your mother must be proud.

Your response to random's exposure of Brady's Best was to re-quote your own race-baiting. You offered the Black Panthers, Judge Taney, and MLK's church in ONE post. It was ten weeks before Dylann Roof. You spent those weeks race-baiting gleefully, on two threads.

I have displayed the future, if we use the wisdom of my favorite libertarian.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
...Are you taking the position that AW guns and LCM's are not dangerous? ..
Among others, yes. No more dangerous than other guns.

Specifically, I'm taking the position that neither of our .22's are "battlefield weapons," as you call them, because I've never heard of one being on a battlefield nor being issued to a soldier.

Yes, they could be used to kill. If lethality is the standard, we can skip right to soak-ed's position of banning all non-government guns.

I think you get to the same result either way. Calling ordinary guns "assault weapons" first is just a bit less honest than Ed's approach.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,218
283
near Seattle, Wa
Among others, yes. No more dangerous than other guns. YOU ARE LYING TOM. AW'S ARE SO DANGEROUS THAT HIGHER COURTS BAN THEM.

Specifically, I'm taking the position that neither of our .22's are "battlefield weapons," as you call them, because I've never heard of one being on a battlefield nor being issued to a soldier.

Yes, they could be used to kill. If lethality is the standard, we can skip right to soak-ed's position of banning all non-government guns.

I think you get to the same result either way. Calling ordinary guns "assault weapons" first is just a bit less honest than Ed's approach.


"battlefield weapons," as you call them
I am cutting edge, I guess. I used the term first, then the Fourth CIrcuit concurred with me, firmly. They make AW's "unconstitutional." (to use the terminology of Poplius, LOL.)

Basically, your argument is to conflate target shooting guns with guns designed for battle. This is self-inflictedTR confusion. Again, the pattern here is applied dishonesty.

Did you read any recent court cases? You need to explain why four federal appeals courts have benned AW's, but none have banned tube feeder .22's.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,265
1,673
Punta Gorda FL
I am cutting edge, I guess. I used the term first, then the Fourth CIrcuit concurred with me, firmly. They make AW's "unconstitutional." (to use the terminology of Poplius, LOL.)

Basically, your argument is to conflate target shooting guns with guns designed for battle. This is self-inflictedTR confusion. Again, the pattern here is applied dishonesty.

Did you read any recent court cases? You need to explain why four federal appeals courts have benned AW's, but none have banned tube feeder .22's.  
I can't help it that the term "assault weapons" is defined to include two of our .22's, only one of which is tube-fed, as you well know.

You already explained why the court rulings apply to my wife's Ruger 10-22. It's a scary AW with an LCM!! Like an M-16! Right?

 
Top