Fogbow

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:23 pm SCOTUS:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense

I missed that in the originalist reading.

eh, being an originalist means you can make up anything you like and claim with a straight face that all real americans believed this going all the way back to when god personally took over Jefferson's body to write the constiution. Anyone who questions that history is some kind of commie revisionist trying to destroy america through reinterpreting their completely true reading of history.

Well said, neeneko!

In law school, I thought the "originalist" view was another way of saying "whatever I think they thought". IOW BULLSHIT!

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:00 pm Saw a statement from Alito where he said that the Buffalo shooting wasn't stopped by NY State's gun laws, so... therefore the shooter there should have been legally able to carry his assault rifle into the grocery store? Not sure where Alito was going, I got disgusted and closed it before finishing. Will look it up again later after I calm down a little.

Edit: Wasn't a statement, it was in his snotty concurring opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see
what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of
the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8
(opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have
occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent
think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting
be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun
outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the
fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list
took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this
case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

So it's just dicta, then, that Alito has made it clear that laws do not deter and are therefore useless and should be discarded? Because once those abortions start again, hoo boy, Katy bar the door!

You know, I often see the same people how champion gun rights saying that the cops aren't doing their jobs by preventing the bad guys from doing bad things, like shooting people.

But, IMHO, if assault rifles were banned or tightly controlled, it would give the cops a tool to arrest the bad guys, merely for possessing an illegal weapon.

So, while, yes, the bad guys would probably ignore the law, cops wouldn't have to wait until they kill someone before they can arrest them.

I have always thought that the argument that "when we outlaw guns, only outlaws will had guns" is specious. My response is "yeah, so what?".

In other words, Humpty Dumpty logic. Sure. Uh huh. Of course. Silly me.

I mean, it was hammered into me as a yoot that legal minds (and by extension, judges) are supposed to be the ne plus ultra of logical thinking and sound inferences and sensible decisions. Yet once again we are subject to their sophistry infused decisions.

Sometimes I feel like Charile Brown and the Supremes are Lucy with the football.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:23 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:00 pm Saw a statement from Alito where he said that the Buffalo shooting wasn't stopped by NY State's gun laws, so... therefore the shooter there should have been legally able to carry his assault rifle into the grocery store? Not sure where Alito was going, I got disgusted and closed it before finishing. Will look it up again later after I calm down a little.

Edit: Wasn't a statement, it was in his snotty concurring opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see
what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of
the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8
(opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent
think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have
occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent
think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting
be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun
outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the
fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list
took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this
case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

So it's just dicta, then, that Alito has made it clear that laws do not deter and are therefore useless and should be discarded? Because once those abortions start again, hoo boy, Katy bar the door!

Why does the dissent think it is relevant to recount red light running that has occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws against running red lights prevent or deter the running of red lights? Will a person bent on running a red light be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to run a red light? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the recent red light runnings took place where red light running was illegal? The red light running law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that red light runner.

neeneko wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:10 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:23 pm SCOTUS:

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense

I missed that in the originalist reading.

eh, being an originalist means you can make up anything you like and claim with a straight face that all real americans believed this going all the way back to when god personally took over Jefferson's body to write the constiution. Anyone who questions that history is some kind of commie revisionist trying to destroy america through reinterpreting their completely true reading of history.

I was suspended in 8th grade for a shouting match with the American History teacher who quite innocently misspoke about Jefferson's intent when he wrote the Constitution and I interrupted to say "that was James Madison mostly, Jefferson was in France" and then things went downhill fast. It got so loud a teacher from another classroom came in to break it up and I was physically dragged from the room.

It's one of my fondest memories.

Amongst many, many, many other issues, the plain fact is that for the last two centuries, the Second Amendment has been treated by SCOTUS as the educationally challenged, red haired step child of the Constitution, alternately ignored, used to support racist agenda's or gerrymandered for partisan reasons.

As an example, 2A, ratified in 1791 wasn't incorporated against the states until 2010, to the best of my knowledge the only other elements from the Constitution so treated are the grand jury requirement of the Fifth Amendment and the civil jury trial right of the Seventh Amendment.

In addition the "normal" level of application of constitutionality requires an enumerated right restriction have "strict scrutiny" applied when reviewing the constitutionality of a limiting law. The 2nd has never had that level applied and in the few occasions raised at the SC has floated inconsistently between "rational basis" and "heightened scrutiny".

Due to this deliberate misapplication of the SC's own rules, guidance and generally agreed principles 2A has been wilfully bent by states over the years.

To take the example of the current concealed carry case in NYC, the rules on CC have their fundamental roots in racism, the restrictions were applied to restrict 'undesirables" from having the same rights as others, blacks, Irish, Italians etc. If you were wealthy and white and politically connected, Trump as an example.....no issues

The laws, particularly but not exclusively in the South, restricting access to "Saturday Night Specials" (cheap, readily accessible firearms) owned predominately by people of color were touted as keeping firearms from criminals when the actual enforcement and result was to target the urban and rural poor, again mostly people of color. After all, armed n**gers could get uppity....

Due to these and other matters, 2A along with women's rights as a whole have become a tinderbox for the left and right with little rational discourse, not just abortion and a woman's right to choose but contraception, no means no, sexism and on.

For gods sake the free access to firearms needs rational, generally acceptable rulings, restrictions on age, mental status, criminal background, sufficient background checks, mandatory training etc. The fact that the current Senate passed milquetoast restrictions are being seen as radical is proof enough of the hold it has on both sides of the political spectrum.

The SC and the Sate legislatives have sown this field over the last 200 years and we are reaping the bitter harvest in blood and torment.

Open carrying while black

That's some dumbass cops. One insists it's county property then the supervisor steps in and says "nah, it's public property." It's not a good look when the cops don't even know the law and wind up contradicting each other.

I haven't scanned the entire thread to see if this has been posted, its a few years old - 2013.

I apologize if I offend anyone by unwittingly reposting it.

Reads not viewable in my country.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:58 am Reads not viewable in my country.

Someone did post the US viewable links….

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:58 am Reads not viewable in my country.

Maybe this one will work. It all three parts in one vid.

Yep.

a very young John Oliver

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:55 am a very young John Oliver

And nothing has changed but for one watered down sputter that is likely mostly unconstitutional under the current SCOTUS.

That little weasel working for Reid who said that a measure of a politician's worth is getting re-elected made me want to punch him straight through my screen. Those folks in Australia had it right, making the world a better place should be their goal. Not lining their pockets. Not getting re-elected. We have precious few politicians in the US who think that way.

I wonder how long till someone tries to challenge the National Firearms Act or the later Firearm Owners Protection Act. SCOTUS seems ripe for overturning that too.

After the coup failed
Those 6 terrorists on SCOTUS
Are determined to burn the country down.

They are the ongoing coup.

While it has been a long while since our last coup (cf Rum Rebellion)...

Gun control laws are constitutional here....

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-01/ ... /101200108

An aspiring Adelaide Hills gunsmith has lost his lifelong weapons collection and has been banned from ever owning another firearm after escaping jail for possessing a large illegal haul in a secret room at his home.

Key points:
Police found 260 guns when they raided Paul Hofmann's Brukunga property in 2019
He had hoped to become a gun dealer
He received a suspended sentence after already spending time in jail

Paul Victor Hofmann, 56, was today sentenced to three years and one month with a non-parole period of two years, but the term was suspended after he spent 13 months in jail.

District Court Judge Jo-Anne Deuter also banned the father-of-two from owning a gun in the future, and ordered the seized guns be forfeited to police.

Hofmann was registered to own 36 firearms – but SA Police found 260 guns when they raided his Brukunga property in August 2019 while investigating an unrelated matter.

Judge Deuter said parts of a sub-machine gun, along with rifles, dangerous handguns and Zulu spears, were found in his home.

She said police found many of the guns in a secret room hidden behind a bookcase, as well as in his roof space.

"The sheer number of guns, gun parts and ammunition found is rarely seen in this court – such a number of guns poses a risk to the community if they fell into the wrong hands," she said.

She said his firearms were at risk of being stolen, as some were untraceable.

"There is no doubt there is a market for unrecorded and essentially untraceable firearms to be used for a criminal purpose," she said.

"It is interesting that your property was looted after you were placed in custody."