Uncooperative Californicators

Gouvernail

Gouvernail

Lottsa people don’t know I’m famous
37,355
5,058
Austin Texas
jocal505 said:
Talk to Scalia, Gouv. He approved half a dozen infringements within Heller. The other courts are building on Scalia's fine work.
Click to expand...
If I lived in CA I would purchase the appropriate arms, call the various media, and announce it.

i would happily go through the court system explaining to each judge what infringe means.

if people want to enact laws about arms those people need to either amend the Constitution or move to a country where infringement is allowed. 

 
jocal505

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
Gouvernail said:
If I lived in CA I would purchase the appropriate arms, call the various media, and announce it.

i would happily go through the court system explaining to each judge what infringe means.

if people want to enact laws about arms those people need to either amend the Constitution or move to a country where infringement is allowed. 
Click to expand...
You would school them indeed. Then find that that particular horse left the barn long ago, headed in a certain direction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,245
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

from the standpoint of political symbolism, having a fight on the implementation is a plus for the people who passed the law, not a minus.
Click to expand...
That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.

 
jocal505

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
Uncooperative Tom said:
You've answered the question before and are now afraid of it?

Is my wife's gun a scary AW with a scary LCM like an M-16 or is it not?
Click to expand...
Is your mind in a rut, Tom?  This claptrap ^^^ surfaced the first week of Dec. 2016. Seven months of this pablum?  You embarass yourself, shamelessly. It's just sad, and revealing, that you have nothing intelligent and worthy to contribute... as the upper courts identify you as a hollow pariah.

Up your game. Please respond to the scholarship in play in the matter within the OP.

The Second Amendment in Historiographical Crisis: Why the Supreme Court Must Reevaluate the Embarrassing 'Standard Model' Moving Forward 

Source: Patrick Charles, a patient, careful scholar quoted in Heller and MacDonald

In Part I, this Article exposes the Standard Model for what it is not—an objective and thoroughly researched history. It identifies four unquestioned historical methodologies to which the Model has failed to adhere and how one poor account has been built upon another, which ultimately has made the “modern” Second Amendment unrecognizable to the founding generation.

Part II then summarizes why historians view the Standard Model as nothing short of a historical embarrassment. In particular, Part II focuses on the rise and fall of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s work on the right to arms. It then illustrates the interpretative consequences that Malcolm and other Standard Model accounts have had on the AngloAmerican understanding of the right to arms.

Lastly, Part III discusses the prudential reasons for reevaluating the Standard Model. In particular, it weighs three historical options that the Supreme Court could adopt for adjudicating future Second Amendment cases and controversies. It then concludes that there is a simple and reasonable construct available to the Court when weighing history. Known as a “historical guidepost” approach, the construct not only ensures the preservation of our history in context, but also allows for constitutional jurisprudence to evolve in the process.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Raz'r

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,745
4,535
De Nile
Uncooperative Tom said:
Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.
Click to expand...
No one wants your guns. There's a nice little shop not far from the office. Still in business.

 
jocal505

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
Uncooperative Tom said:
Washington Post Comments

They quote a Berkley law professor saying this:

That's true. Having a legal fight over how and when arms will be confiscated does presume they will be.

At least we don't have to listen to the "nobody wants to take your guns" morons in this thread. Making it a felony to keep them kinda undermines that argument.
Click to expand...
"Nobody wants to take your non-LCM guns."  

99% of U.S. citizens would be unaffected by such a ban. 1% would give up three AW's each...

You have some social adjustments to make. Bans like this have been supported in upper court appeals. Such bans never been opposed by circuit courts.

 
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,245
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
Raz'r said:
Come on out Tom. We can go look at some gunz you can buy here.
Click to expand...
Why would I be interested in the neutered guns that are legal in California?

We're allowed to have standard capacity magazines with ordinary magazine release buttons here.

And our government has not yet made possession of legal guns a felony like yours has. Cling to the "no one wants your guns" line if you must but when they make it a felony to keep them instead of handing them over to the state, that makes it seem just a bit to me like they want to confiscate guns.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jocal505

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
Uncooperative Tom said:
Why would I be interested in the neutered guns that are legal in California?

We're allowed to have standard capacity magazines with ordinary magazine release buttons here.

And our government has not yet made possession of legal guns a felony like yours has. Cling to the "no one wants your guns" line if you must but when they make it a felony to keep them instead of handing them over to the state, that makes it seem just a bit to me like they want to confiscate guns.
Click to expand...
1.Why would you be interested in WA state laws, as they apply in FL?

2. These AW guns and LCM's are no longer legal, and never were in common use. Life is a progression, mate. 

3. "They" only need to confiscate battle-bred weaponry. Not all guns.

Gun Grabber Boogaloo.PNG

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,245
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
jocal505 said:
3. "They" only need to confiscate battle-bred weaponry. Not all guns.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jocal505

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,215
282
near Seattle, Wa
Uncooperative Tom said:
Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.
Click to expand...
You need to answer your own question. What's the big issue with voters in CA feeling the need to restrict battle guns, and perhaps other guns? 

 
Raz'r

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,745
4,535
De Nile
Uncooperative Tom said:
Yeah, right. Unfortunately for you, I've been watching Cali for a while. I watched when they registered handguns, saying "no one wants to register your rifles."

Then they passed a rifle registry, but said, "no one wants to take your guns."

Then they made it a felony to keep them. What happened to "nobody wants to register your rifles?" What happened to "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Those turned out to be lies, so now gun owners like me expect lies.
Click to expand...
It's ok Tom, we don't really want you out here anyway. We'll live in our "neutered" gun society, just fine, thankyouverymuch

 
Pertinacious Tom

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,245
1,665
Punta Gorda FL
Raz'r said:
It's ok Tom, we don't really want you out here anyway. We'll live in our "neutered" gun society, just fine, thankyouverymuch
Click to expand...
Aren't you fickle? First you invite me to shop for neutered guns then you don't want me to come.

I think your society is going to have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of new felons soon. People like yourself who do not own guns are "just fine" with confiscating guns from others but those whose property is being taken are not "just fine" with that plan.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top