What is with guns and paranoia?

[crimresearch]

You and maybe five members of the current supreme court, ignoring, what, almost a hundred of years of precedence? I love your people: the kind who, when the court happens to agree with them by even the narrowest of margins, the issue is declared settled law.

And what precedent was that? Dred Scott?
As those who actually understand the law have already pointed out many times in these threads, in both of those decisions what the Court cited (after their exhaustive explication of the many on point previous cases), was the 14th amendment.

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation.

that later portion deals with the Fourteenth Amendment; it was the Fourteenth Amendment to which the plaintiff’s nonmembership in the militia was relevant.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

the ban and several re-lated City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amend-ments.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf


If you are only going to agree with them when they reject the 14th as 'not settled law', you are going to be unhappy for a long time.

 

[crimresearch]

Like I said -- poor sniping. Good luck, though. Maybe you'll troll someone for a fruitless discussion of semantics on some tangential non-point.

Highly unlikely... as is getting you to back up your own words.

 

[BStrong]

Cain:

As a wise old law professor supposedly once advised, whenever someone says something is "clear" or "obvious," pay special attention to the claim that follows. Heller and McDonald (brilliant 5-4 decisions in agreement with resident Constitutional scholar RenaissanceBiker) provided (among other things) an individual right to own a handgun. Fine. So how is a license preventing anyone from owning a handgun? Is it a "heavy burden"? Or, as Ranb points out, you have to deal with renewals. I always thought renewals were relatively easy...

When someone references the score as a tactic to dismiss the win, the duscussion probably won't get much better, but I'll take a shot.

There is no provision in the BoR or the Constitution requiring a license to excercise any enumerated or unenumerated right.

When the SC ruled on Heller they made it as clear as possible - simple possession is protected - regulations concerning carry, sale, FFL licensing, that will probably stand, but simple possession of firearms in common use is a protected right.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What is a gun person? Does it include the police, military, security guards and professionals that use guns for a living?

How about my coworker who wants to take a cross country motorcycle trip, but is trying to figure out how to not enter states that don't have CFL reciprocity with Texas?

 

[Ranb]

I would consider his/her intentions to be excessively limiting, but until I have more info, I would not consider that person to be a dangerous stupid idiot like Cain might suggest.

Ranb

 

[BStrong]

How about my coworker who wants to take a cross country motorcycle trip, but is trying to figure out how to not enter states that don't have CFL reciprocity with Texas?

I'd advise him to seek a Utah carry permit.

The Utah carry permit has more state-to-state reciprocity than the Texas permit.

 

[Kestrel]

How about my coworker who wants to take a cross country motorcycle trip, but is trying to figure out how to not enter states that don't have CFL reciprocity with Texas?

The simplest solution is to leave the firearm at home.

 

[crimresearch]

The simplest solution is to leave the firearm at home.

And quit watching Dennis Hopper movies...

 

[Cain]

And what precedent was that? Dred Scott?
As those who actually understand the law have already pointed out many times in these threads, in both of those decisions what the Court cited (after their exhaustive explication of the many on point previous cases), was the 14th amendment.

And since can't argue what's been said, you must vomit unrelated nonsense.

If RenaissanceBiker's view is so obvious, then why is legal scholarship divided? Why did the Supreme court, by 5-4 have to overturn Circuit Court rulings? How is it city bans lasted for decades? Historically the NRA has favored lobbying Congress rather than going through the courts because that's where they'd lose. It's not difficult to see these rulings going the other way with O'Conner on the court rather than Alito.

--------------------
BStrong

When someone references the score as a tactic to dismiss the win, the duscussion probably won't get much better, but I'll take a shot.

Your attempt to poison the well has been noted. I am merely saying these interpretations that people continue to insist are obvious are not obvious (see the above segment of this post).

There is no provision in the BoR or the Constitution requiring a license to excercise any enumerated or unenumerated right.

When the SC ruled on Heller they made it as clear as possible - simple possession is protected - regulations concerning carry, sale, FFL licensing, that will probably stand, but simple possession of firearms in common use is a protected right.

One more time: Are safe storage laws unconstitutional? "Simple possession is protected" -- unless you're a felon. Is it unconstitutional to create a screening process so that people who buy guns for their own use are at least competent to, um, use and store them (other than the previously mentioned laws barring convicts or the insane)? For Ranb instead of license renewal fees, I mentioned filing fees (hate tip to my pal, crim). So for you, instead of calling them licenses, we can call them permits.

I should add that I do not find the individual right interpretation of the court persuasive, and there have been umpteen threads on this already, discussing federalism, tyranny of the central govt. and militias as "necessary to the security of a free state."

 

[crimresearch]

And since can't argue what's been said, you must vomit unrelated nonsense.

If RenaissanceBiker's view is so obvious, then why is legal scholarship divided? Why did the Supreme court, by 5-4 have to overturn Circuit Court rulings? How is it city bans lasted for decades? Historically the NRA has favored lobbying Congress rather than going through the courts because that's where they'd lose. It's not difficult to see these rulings going the other way with O'Conner on the court rather than Alito.

--------------------<SNIP>

'Legal scholarship' is divided?

People who make claims like 'The Supreme Court ignored hundreds of years of precedent', and when given direct links to the Supreme Court's own website showing how carefully they complied with hundred of years of precedent, handwave it away as 'vomiting unrelated nonsense', aren't legal scholars.

Nothing remarkable about a split decision on a political issue like that. Split decisions are the norm in the vast majority of USSC cases
Nothing unheard of about lower courts deferring to pass the buck up to the Supreme Court, or about the Court using ripeness, standing, et al. to put off dealing with hot button issues until a significant case comes along.


Whether it is *popular* in certain quarters, the Supreme Court left the 14th amendment standing, in dealing with the 2nd.

People who want a basic weapon in their home can have one, unless they fall into certain categories.

And race, gender, or income level aren't one of those categories.

End of story.

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>
I should add that I do not find the individual right interpretation of the court persuasive, and there have been umpteen threads on this already, discussing federalism, tyranny of the central govt. and militias as "necessary to the security of a free state."

You don't get a vote. Dressing up your opinions as facts with buzz words like 'find persuasive' doesn't make them at all compelling.

And whether or not you 'agree' with the Supreme Court's application of the 14th Amendment to individual 2nd Amendment rights, is beyond irrelevant, no matter how many 'ad populum fallacies you drag in from the 'umpteen' sovereign citizen and 'freemen' threads on the topic.

 

[Robrob]

Just my $0.02:

I am a member of a "well organized militia." It's called the National Guard.

I work in law enforcement and have carried a gun nearly 24/7 for the past 16 years. Outside of work, I have never encountered a situation where I had to draw it, much less use it.

In the past 16 years I've had two cars totaled. So in my life AFAICT; the need to defend myself against attack from others is much less vital compared to the need to defend myself against bad drivers.

In my opinion, people who feel the driving need to carry a firearm in national parks, at the movies, in Disneyworld, etc... are concerned about something other than their "safety."

 

[Cain]

'Legal scholarship' is divided?

People who make claims like 'The Supreme Court ignored hundreds of years of precedent', and when given direct links to the Supreme Court's own website showing how carefully they complied with hundred of years of precedent, handwave it away as 'vomiting unrelated nonsense', aren't legal scholars.

"Almost a hundred a years" magically turns into hundreds of years (its in quotes so I must've said it). Are you suggesting Constitutional scholars are not evenly divided on this issue? Maybe 30 or 40 years they weren't, when most rejected the individual rights view.

Nothing remarkable about a split decision on a political issue like that. Split decisions are the norm in the vast majority of USSC cases

If I were as interested in your posts as you were in mine, I might google to see if the "vast majority" of court cases were in fact split decisions. It's rather irrelevant because a 5-4 split IS remarkable. The court knows it. And the court knows it "makes a statement" when it rules unanimously (see for instance Brown v. Board of Education.

Nothing unheard of about lower courts deferring to pass the buck up to the Supreme Court, or about the Court using ripeness, standing, et al. to put off dealing with hot button issues until a significant case comes along.

And finding differently than the Supreme Court...

People who want a basic weapon in their home can have one, unless they fall into certain categories.

And race, gender, or income level aren't one of those categories.

Race, gender, and income level have what to do with what?

Should blind people (with no criminal record) be allowed to buy guns for home protection?

End of story.

Cool.

------
crimresearch:

You don't get a vote. Dressing up your opinions as facts with buzz words like 'find persuasive' doesn't make them at all compelling.

You have the nervous circuitry of a chihuahua -- don't know when to stop yapping. Who knew "find persuasive" -- another careless, technically inaccurate non-quote -- was an attempt to use "buzz words" to make an opinion... more compelling??

And whether or not you 'agree' with the Supreme Court's application of the 14th Amendment to individual 2nd Amendment rights, is beyond irrelevant, no matter how many 'ad populum fallacies you drag in from the 'umpteen' sovereign citizen and 'freemen' threads on the topic.

Again with the vague accusation of a fallacy. And shame on those who disagreed with the Supreme Court in Plessy or Bettes or any number of other cases. Their opinions were also beyond irrelevant.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would consider his/her intentions to be excessively limiting, but until I have more info, I would not consider that person to be a dangerous stupid idiot like Cain might suggest.

I'm sorry. I should have taken your question in that context. I consider my coworker to be a "gun person" because of his attitude - and a bunch of stuff he reads on blogs and takes at face value like Ann Landers being the president of the Brady Campaign. Myself, I don't get too obsessed with 2nd Amendment issues and have had to walk away from many right vs. militia act debates because "gun people" get a bit crazy when you want to discuss the actual law.

That said, I wish I still had my Norinco folding stock AK in 5.56/.223. That was not only a cool gun to fire, but to have and be seen with. I'd also like to have a .357 and .45, but currently am gunless. I think that is what differentiates between a "gun person" and someone who appreciates guns and/or supports the 2nd Amendment. For the former it's a raison d'etre, for the latter, their just something you possess.

I'd advise him to seek a Utah carry permit.

The Utah carry permit has more state-to-state reciprocity than the Texas permit.

Not that I want to encourage his nuttery, but how does a Texas resident go about getting a Utah CFL permit?

 

[JJM 777]

I fear that UN will ban nukes. They are conspiring to take them away. I cannot sleep because of this constant worry. What would our life be worth without nukes? They define our freedom and way of life. Somebody heeeeeeeelp!

 

[BStrong]

I'm sorry. I should have taken your question in that context. I consider my coworker to be a "gun person" because of his attitude - and a bunch of stuff he reads on blogs and takes at face value like Ann Landers being the president of the Brady Campaign. Myself, I don't get too obsessed with 2nd Amendment issues and have had to walk away from many right vs. militia act debates because "gun people" get a bit crazy when you want to discuss the actual law.

That said, I wish I still had my Norinco folding stock AK in 5.56/.223. That was not only a cool gun to fire, but to have and be seen with. I'd also like to have a .357 and .45, but currently am gunless. I think that is what differentiates between a "gun person" and someone who appreciates guns and/or supports the 2nd Amendment. For the former it's a raison d'etre, for the latter, their just something you possess.



Not that I want to encourage his nuttery, but how does a Texas resident go about getting a Utah CFL permit?

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/concealedfirearms.html

Cain - re: individual rights interpretation of the Second:

http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

The SC case central to the argument against the Second as an individual right is U.S. v. Miller, 1939, and the first fact anyone should be aware of wrt Miller is that the defendants (Layton and Miller) were not represented before the court, and the second fact is that the court ruling hinged on the utility of the weapon at hand (a short barreled shotgun subject to N.F.A. registration) as being suitable for militia use - since the court had no such evidence, they found that in this instance, the Second did not protect unregulated possession of the firearm in question.

Kind of hard to lose when only one side shows up.

Safe storage laws, depending on construct could pass muster (imo) now, but if "safe storage" was structured in such a way that it would exclude low income individuals or renters from possessing firearms, it would probably not fly.

I'm personally a true believer in gunsafes, own a bunch, and recommend to all new shooters that they buy a safe before they buy a firearm.

PS- if anyone needs advice on moving and/or installing safes, PM me. I've become an expert on the subject.

 

[R.Mackey]

In the past 16 years I've had two cars totaled. So in my life AFAICT; the need to defend myself against attack from others is much less vital compared to the need to defend myself against bad drivers.

In my opinion, people who feel the driving need to carry a firearm in national parks, at the movies, in Disneyworld, etc... are concerned about something other than their "safety."

I think that's wise... and I agree with you.

The correct argument in favor of challenging arbitrary firearms restrictions is to preserve the right entire from a creeping, slippery-slope attack.

Carrying in Disneyland strikes me as a non-starter -- Walt's house, Walt's rules -- but if there's no reason to ban firearms in national parks, why enact the ban in the first place? If in force, why not challenge it?

 

[Travis]

I love bringing up Obama allowing guns in national parks with gun advocates. They always just say something about how "Obama let that law get passed so he can ball all guns later!"

Or something to that effect.

 

[crimresearch]

"Almost a hundred a years" magically turns into hundreds of years (its in quotes so I must've said it). Are you suggesting Constitutional scholars are not evenly divided on this issue? Maybe 30 or 40 years they weren't, when most rejected the individual rights view.



If I were as interested in your posts as you were in mine, I might google to see if the "vast majority" of court cases were in fact split decisions. It's rather irrelevant because a 5-4 split IS remarkable. The court knows it. And the court knows it "makes a statement" when it rules unanimously (see for instance Brown v. Board of Education.



And finding differently than the Supreme Court...



Race, gender, and income level have what to do with what?

Should blind people (with no criminal record) be allowed to buy guns for home protection?



Cool.

------
crimresearch:


You have the nervous circuitry of a chihuahua -- don't know when to stop yapping. Who knew "find persuasive" -- another careless, technically inaccurate non-quote -- was an attempt to use "buzz words" to make an opinion... more compelling??



Again with the vague accusation of a fallacy. And shame on those who disagreed with the Supreme Court in Plessy or Bettes or any number of other cases. Their opinions were also beyond irrelevant.

30 or 40 years ago, there was no Heller or McDonald ruling, and there couldn't be any legal scholarship disagreeing with either of those decisions.
There were the vestiges of Jim Crow however, so that attempt to move the goalposts fails right away.

And those rulings made it very clear what the 14th amendment's prohibition on unequal treatment (which includes race, gender and so forth) has to do with it.

The gun laws of Chicago and DC allowed the wealthy and the privileged to have guns for self protection, while discriminating against the inner city residents... like Otis McDonald, a 76 year old Democrat and a black man.
The Court held quite properly and in keeping with precedent that the 14th Amendment means what it says, not what you wish it said.

So instead of admitting that you made a pile of bogus assertions, you go from handwaving away the links as 'vomit', to reductio ad absurdum about discriminating against the disabled as somehow justifying discrimination in general.


You've had ample opportunity to back up your assertions with facts, and you refuse to do so.

Feel free to keep up the anti-14th Amendment rhetoric all you want, I'm not buying it.

 

[jakesteele]

The fact that things like this continue to hold traction with the gun crowd has me concerned. Especially since I have hung with some very liberal crowds in my time and really have never run across a deep rooted desire to actually ban all guns. Sure a lot of them don't like guns, I certainly don't, but they were pragmatic enough to know that trying to ban them would be a huge folly.

So why does this paranoia persist?

They seemed sure Obama would ban guns and then he didn't. Then they thought that Fast & Furious was part of some plot to ban guns. Now they think George Soros is spending huge amounts of his own money to simply stop manufacturing them.

I mean really?

--
It does seem a little odd that someone like George would be interested in guns enough to spend the kind of money he would have to to do that. What do you think his true motive is for doing this?