Maybe the 2nd isn't as fixed as all that...

[applecorped]

Well, maybe next time. This dog ain't hunting.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, exactly like that.

My focus in this thread, because topic. You of all people ought to know that where gun control is concerned, my focus is diffuse and wide-ranging. You ought to know because I've explained it to you, several times.

With due respect, you demand too much of your readers. There are an awful lot of voices on this site, and you can't imagine that your voice is so special that the average reader knows your position well.

I find that, even with folks with whom I've had long, interesting discussions, I have forgotten the broad points they've made within mere weeks, much less the nuances.

It would be good advice for all of us to remind the reader of our views regularly, rather than to presume that they remember what we said last week.

 

[AdamSK]

Many A2AAs here and elsewhere are convinced that the 2nd Amendment is more-or-less inviolable, and that there is no chance in the foreseeable future that it will ever be changed or repealed. But if the Supreme Court can treat the 4th Amendment so casually, what's to stop them from treating the 2nd in the same way?

I disagree with your characterization. The Court didn't say the stop was legal; they simply said the arrest and search was based on the issued warrant. Which it was.

They are no more treating the 4th casually here than other decisions have treated the 1st, 2nd, and 4th casually. When you have the complexity of a scumbag doing multiple different bad things, some improper police conduct may not protect all of his different criminal behavior.

 

[arthwollipot]

I disagree with your characterization. The Court didn't say the stop was legal; they simply said the arrest and search was based on the issued warrant. Which it was.

They are no more treating the 4th casually here than other decisions have treated the 1st, 2nd, and 4th casually. When you have the complexity of a scumbag doing multiple different bad things, some improper police conduct may not protect all of his different criminal behavior.

Again, three Supreme Court Justices disagree.

If a majority ruled on a 2nd Amendment issue and three Supreme Court Justices agreed that the ruling violated that Amendment, you can bet that the A2AAs would be up in arms about it. Metaphorically, hopefully.

 

[arthwollipot]

With due respect, you demand too much of your readers. There are an awful lot of voices on this site, and you can't imagine that your voice is so special that the average reader knows your position well.

I find that, even with folks with whom I've had long, interesting discussions, I have forgotten the broad points they've made within mere weeks, much less the nuances.

It would be good advice for all of us to remind the reader of our views regularly, rather than to presume that they remember what we said last week.

That would be a valid point, except that theprestige and I have butted heads on this many times in the past, and he has consistently been unable to grasp that I am not his strawman. When he replies to one of my posts, I always assume that he is replying to his strawman and not to me.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, exactly like that.

What gun rights argument would you say is refuted by Heller (or, by analogy, is refuted by this ruling)? Can you cite an example of that argument being made, so that we have something concrete to apply these rulings to?

My focus in this thread, because topic. You of all people ought to know that where gun control is concerned, my focus is diffuse and wide-ranging. You ought to know because I've explained it to you, several times.

This is a non sequitur. Of course I know that you're all over the place when it comes to gun control. I'm examining the idea that going all over the place may sometimes lead to less-fruitful places, and that it has done so here.

Also, I hope that you are at lest a little bit amused (as I am) by the idea of a "diffuse focus".

With due respect, you demand too much of your readers. There are an awful lot of voices on this site, and you can't imagine that your voice is so special that the average reader knows your position well.

It's okay. I do know arth's position pretty well. Or did--it's been a while since I've checked in on it. Sometimes I feel like I know his position better than he does. The was one interesting discussion about the role of government authority in legitimizing human rights... But I digress.

I guess if I state my understanding of his position, and he corrects me by telling me to go back and re-read his position, then I'll know it hasn't changed much since the last time I checked.

That would be a valid point, except that theprestige and I have butted heads on this many times in the past, and he has consistently been unable to grasp that I am not his strawman. When he replies to one of my posts, I always assume that he is replying to his strawman and not to me.

If I tell you what I understand your position to be in this thread (because topic), will you identify and correct my misunderstandings?

 

[theprestige]

When he replies to one of my posts, I always assume that he is replying to his strawman and not to me.

Speaking of strawmans, I feel like this is a strawman:

[ . . . ] just because it is in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean that it can never be altered, as A2AAs here and elsewhere are fond of suggesting.

Can you cite an example of this fond suggestion by an A2AA here? It would be nice to see the suggestion in detail and on context. That way we could have something concrete to apply this ruling to, and discuss. I am skeptical that the suggestions you allude to have the meaning you seem to attribute in this thread.

 

[theprestige]

Again, three Supreme Court Justices disagree.

If a majority ruled on a 2nd Amendment issue and three Supreme Court Justices agreed that the ruling violated that Amendment, you can bet that the A2AAs would be up in arms about it. Metaphorically, hopefully.

Here's a ruling against gun owners by the Supreme Court:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...c-abusers-can-lose-their-gun-ownership-rights

People convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can be prohibited from owning guns. 6 justices ruled for the infringement, 2 dissented. How loud was the outcry from gun rights advocates?

I feel like this is another strawman. You seem to be painting gun rights advocates as unreasonable and prone to spurious arguments. But you don't actually present any examples of their unreasonableness or arguments here for discussion. The effect of the thread seems to be to refute arguments that are alleged but not cited. Do you have any examples of Second Amendment activists being "up in arms" by a majority Supreme Court ruling against them?

Also, what do you mean by "up in arms" here (leaving out the literalist interpretation)? I interpret it to mean "unreasonably upset". But I don't want to risk strawmanning your actual concern. What is your actual concern? Why is it important to establish that gun rights advocates would be "up in arms" over a Supreme Court ruling against them?

Would it look any different from civil liberties advocates who are upset about this 4th Amendment ruling?

 

[arthwollipot]

Sometimes I feel like I know his position better than he does.

This is a very interesting admission. You are saying that you feel comfortable with making **** up about me in direct defiance of what I actually say. Thanks for putting that out there. It's very helpful.

If I tell you what I understand your position to be in this thread (because topic), will you identify and correct my misunderstandings?

In light of the above admission, there would be absolutely no point and I don't see any good reason why I should bother expending the effort.

 

[BStrong]

Maybe the 2nd isn't as fixed as all that...

Or the 1st Amendment either...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308755

WTR the op, this isn't news.

Warrants, including traffic warrants, parole or probation status all are conditions that allow LE to search an individual when encountered.

There is also the provision for the Terry Stop, that allows an officer to search an individual they encounter, including during a traffic stop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Terry goes back to the 60's, and has been upheld in every challenge that I'm aware of.

 

[theprestige]

Again, three Supreme Court Justices disagree.

I think this bears repeated examination.

Heller, an actual Second Amendment case, was decided 5 to 4. And yet it's still the established precedent. The thing is, the Justices disagree all the time. In what way, exactly, do you imagine that the dissent is a refutation of the majority ruling? Three Justices disagree. So what? Six Justices agree. What now?

 

[theprestige]

This is a very interesting admission. You are saying that you feel comfortable with making **** up about me in direct defiance of what I actually say.

I never said anything like that. You of all people should understand the importance of not baldly lying about other people's position.

In light of the above admission, there would be absolutely no point and I don't see any good reason why I should bother expending the effort.

Now you're just avoiding an opportunity for fruitful discussion.

 

[arthwollipot]

I never said anything like that. You of all people should understand the importance of not baldly lying about other people's position.

Pot, kettle.

Now you're just avoiding an opportunity for fruitful discussion.

In my experience discussion with you is never fruitful.

 

[theprestige]

In my experience discussion with you is never fruitful.

And yet after the OP, replies to me or about me account for half your posts in this thread. None of them address the several interesting lines of discussion I've proposed.

We could be talking about what this case really means in the context of the 4th Amendment. We could be talking about what it means in the context of the 2nd Amendment.

We could be talking about what this case means in the context of claims of 2nd Amendment advocates who "are convinced that the 2nd Amendment is more-or-less inviolable, and that there is no chance in the foreseeable future that it will ever be changed or repealed", or who suggest that "just because it is in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean that it can never be altered".

I've asked for examples of these things, because I think it's difficult to see what effect this ruling would have on such opinions, without seeing the opinions themselves in context.

The ruling you cite in the OP refines an established precedent in interpreting the limits of the 4th Amendment. It would take more than mere refinement to affect the Heller ruling that the right to bear arms includes the right to self defense. So if we're to look at what this means for the 2nd Amendment, it would be helpful to see an example of what's being proposed, and what arguments are being made for why that proposal could not work.

I've asked for such examples, which I think go directly towards the further flourishing of discussion in this thread. You have ignored it, in favor of complaining about me personally. If our discussion is fruitless, it's only because you have refused to bear any fruit.

 

[theprestige]

Here's something else I wonder about this ruling: Does it also excuse searches made before the warrant is discovered?

What if the cop had illegally detained someone, and unconstitutionally searched them while they waited for the warant search results? Would the Court say that since the search would have happened anyway once the warrant was found, that the evidence obtained is admissible?

 

[AdamSK]

Here's something else I wonder about this ruling: Does it also excuse searches made before the warrant is discovered?

What if the cop had illegally detained someone, and unconstitutionally searched them while they waited for the warant search results? Would the Court say that since the search would have happened anyway once the warrant was found, that the evidence obtained is admissible?

No, the Court was very clear that the untainted arrest warrant attenuated the search only because the search was in serving the arrest warrant. The search itself was legal, and the only question was whether the illegal stop that preceded it also tainted it. Had the search itself been illegal, the evidence would be thrown out regardless of what was discovered later.

 

[theprestige]

No, the Court was very clear that the untainted arrest warrant attenuated the search only because the search was in serving the arrest warrant. The search itself was legal, and the only question was whether the illegal stop that preceded it also tainted it. Had the search itself been illegal, the evidence would be thrown out regardless of what was discovered later.

Gotcha, thanks. Re-reading the case I see it now.