PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Circuit says NO to 2A incorporation? Does it affect Nordyke?


gunsmith
02-10-2009, 8:24 PM
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/02/heller-uh-we-cant-take-em-to-court.html

It looks like the second circuit said no to incorporation.
Sucks!
I pray Nordyke goes smoothly.
anyone have any ideas?

gunsmith
02-10-2009, 8:39 PM
are not most of the original 10 rights enumerated in the B.O.R already incorporated?
That we have to fight so dang hard for a basic civil right is infuriating, an affront to what so many have died for.

mister dize
02-10-2009, 8:41 PM
This is a bizarre case. It doesn't even involve guns.

The original defendant was charged with possessing nunchucks, which I guess is a no-no in New York. The court used precedent from Presser v. Illinois to say that 2A only applies to federal law. They say Heller doesn't change that, because:

"as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case,
yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals
should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of
overruling its own decisions."

Which, uh, I guess means "We disagree with Heller, so we're going to ignore it. The supreme court can overrule us if they want"

What happened to the rule of law? Can courts all the sudden ignore Roe v. Wade because they disagree with it? Can I build an AW because I want one? :confused:

Geodetic
02-10-2009, 8:41 PM
Seems like some of these idiots are just begging for a war.

SwissFluCase
02-10-2009, 8:43 PM
Huh? None of that made sense. They just heard arguments, and aren't expect to rule until July. Maybe this is a different case? SCOTUS will incorporate if the districts don't. They basically said bring it on.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

RomanDad
02-10-2009, 8:46 PM
No... It wont effect Nordyke.

What it may do, is if Nordyke comes down OPPOSITE, it will FASTTRACK incorporation to the SCOTUS...

THATS GOOD FOR US....

ke6guj
02-10-2009, 8:50 PM
Huh? None of that made sense. They just heard arguments, and aren't expect to rule until July. Maybe this is a different case? SCOTUS will incorporate if the districts don't. They basically said bring it on.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

this is about a 2nd Circuit case, Maloney v. Cuomo, that was argued on December 15, 2008 and the opinion was released on January 28, 2009. Wow, only took about 6 weeks for the ruling.

You are thinking about Nordyke, which was heard inthe 9th Circuit a couple weeks ago.

hoffmang
02-10-2009, 8:52 PM
This case is bad news and the pro-se appelant is going to keep going. He's completely screwed up the 2nd Circuit. However, it is very unlikely to hurt Nordyke. I also agree with RomanDad that this likely widens the circuit split meaning that the odds of Nordyke or Chicago going to SCOTUS is higher.

The cost is that New York is hosed. This is why you hear us repeat again and again that one shouldn't bring 2A cases without using one of the right lawyers...

-Gene

DarkHorse
02-10-2009, 8:58 PM
are not most of the original 10 rights enumerated in the B.O.R already incorporated?

Yes, most of the rights are incorporated. RKBA is not one of those (yet).


Which, uh, I guess means "We disagree with Heller, so we're going to ignore it. The supreme court can overrule us if they want"

What happened to the rule of law? Can courts all the sudden ignore Roe v. Wade because they disagree with it? Can I build an AW because I want one? :confused:

It's not that they don't want to follow Heller (necessarily), but the 2nd District apparently feels Presser v. Illinois to be more applicable to this specific case. Even in Heller, SCOTUS did not incorporate 2A, as DC is not a state, but a federal enclave. It did not deal with whether or not states must recognize a federal RKBA. So, the 2nd District felt it must rule in accordance w/SCOTUS precedent, which was Presser v. Illinois, and let the case be taken to SCOTUS for them to overturn their own prior ruling.

hoffmang
02-10-2009, 9:02 PM
The most important issue is that the 2nd Circuit didn't perform the analysis required by Duncan v. Louisiana (mostly because I'd expect the pro-se didn't know he should raise the issue.) As such, they didn't do the analysis "required by our later cases" as Scalia mentioned.

-Gene

gunsmith
02-10-2009, 9:16 PM
The most important issue is that the 2nd Circuit didn't perform the analysis required by Duncan v. Louisiana (mostly because I'd expect the pro-se didn't know he should raise the issue.) As such, they didn't do the analysis "required by our later cases" as Scalia mentioned.

-Gene ... The cost is that New York is hosed. This is why you hear us repeat again and again that one shouldn't bring 2A cases without using one of the right lawyers...

Dang! I'm a native NY'er and I wanna visit with my CCW!

hoffmang
02-10-2009, 9:21 PM
My understanding was that Mr. Maloney would not be dissuaded that he was right.

It's important to keep this old adage in mind. A pro-se plaintiff has a fool for a client. It applies equally to lawyers representing themselves.

-Gene

gunsmith
02-10-2009, 9:59 PM
My understanding was that Mr. Maloney would not be dissuaded that he was right.

It's important to keep this old adage in mind. A pro-se plaintiff has a fool for a client. It applies equally to lawyers representing themselves.

-Gene

Anyway, if we get 9th incorporation, does this mean we have to wait until another SCOTUS case before we get CA ccw?

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 10:00 PM
This case is bad news and the pro-se appelant is going to keep going. He's completely screwed up the 2nd Circuit. However, it is very unlikely to hurt Nordyke. I also agree with RomanDad that this likely widens the circuit split meaning that the odds of Nordyke or Chicago going to SCOTUS is higher.

The cost is that New York is hosed. This is why you hear us repeat again and again that one shouldn't bring 2A cases without using one of the right lawyers...

-Gene Fantastic that they screwed that up right before my wife and I may be moving there... :(

I guess we'll have to find the nearest possible place in PA to live and commute to work. :driving:

hoffmang
02-10-2009, 10:01 PM
Anyway, if we get 9th incorporation, does this mean we have to wait until another SCOTUS case before we get CA ccw?

It will probably take a Supreme Court Case to apply the 2A to the 2nd Circuit, yes.

Don pointed this out in an earlier thread here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=151861

-Gene

CCWFacts
02-10-2009, 10:05 PM
I would be really pissed if I were living in NY right now... this one selfish masturbating idiot has probably resulted in NYC being the last place in the entire US to issue CCWs to ordinary people.

SwissFluCase
02-10-2009, 10:21 PM
this is about a 2nd Circuit case, Maloney v. Cuomo, that was argued on December 15, 2008 and the opinion was released on January 28, 2009. Wow, only took about 6 weeks for the ruling.

You are thinking about Nordyke, which was heard inthe 9th Circuit a couple weeks ago.

I know the timeframe with Nordyke. I thought the case in the 2nd was after. Apparently not.

ETA: I was thinking of the Chicago handgun ban. This Maloney guy is an idiot. Hopefully the SCOTUS will dismiss any case he brings to prevent any more damage.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Dr Rockso
02-10-2009, 10:28 PM
I know the timeframe with Nordyke. I thought the case in the 2nd was after. Apparently not.

ETA: I was thinking of the Chicago handgun ban. This Maloney guy is an idiot. Hopefully the SCOTUS will dismiss any case he brings to prevent any more damage.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

You're probably thinking Chicago (7th?). This was just some random guy being incompetent. (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=151861)

ke6guj
02-10-2009, 10:34 PM
the thing is that there are multiple cases spread out across the country, all at different points in the district/appeals process. We knew that Nordyke was waiting in the wings to be heard in an appeals court, but Mahoney snuck in in front of us. And all the post-Heller cases are way back in line.

SwissFluCase
02-10-2009, 10:41 PM
You're probably thinking Chicago (7th?). This was just some random guy being incompetent. (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=151861)

Yep. That's it. If there is a way for Maloney go to prison for the nunchuk violation (because he deserves to take one for the team) and we still get nationwide incorporation, I'll be just fine. :thumbsup:

Regards,


SwissFluCase

ed bernay
02-11-2009, 7:34 AM
I'm not sure I understand why everyone is so upset at this guy in NY. Its not like the area of the country covered by the 2nd Circuit is a bastion of liberty now fubar for all of eternity. NY and most of the surrounding states are extremely anti and treat the 2nd amendment like a priviledge already. No one is going to lose their rights because they are for the most part extremely limited anyway. I would argue that this case is actually not that bad for us. Like others have said, it creates the split in the circuits that is needed for SCOTUS to hear the case. Imagine that this case didn't exist which would leave only Chicago and Nordyke for incorporation (both expected though not guaranteed to go our way...NOT a jinx, fingers crossed, knock on wood, breaking a wishbone). If both of these cases went our way and this NY case didn't exist, then who knows when and the type of case to come along that would create the circuit split requiring SCOTUS review. Someone needs to get on the phone to the NY attorney representing the 2nd circuit case to tell him not to appeal to SCOTUS (I doubt they would take it anyway). Then we wait until Chicago or Nordyke comes down. If one goes our way then we are in business.

mikehaas
02-11-2009, 7:58 AM
This is why you hear us repeat again and again that one shouldn't bring 2A cases without using one of the right lawyers...
And most importantly, unless you want another Silveira, use a lawyer that knows how to workn with NRA!!!! Don't feel wishy-washy about asking NRA for a referral.

So-called RKBA attorneys that don't play well with NRA are EXTREMELY BAD NEWS TO BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS.

mikehaas
02-11-2009, 8:04 AM
It's important to keep this old adage in mind. A pro-se plaintiff has a fool for a client. It applies equally to lawyers representing themselves.

And to lawyers with egos as big as planets who can't cooperate with others and think they're smart enough to run the whole show. How often have we seen attorneys totally screw up an RKBA issue BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN?

hoffmang
02-11-2009, 8:37 AM
Yep. That's it. If there is a way for Maloney go to prison for the nunchuk violation (because he deserves to take one for the team) and we still get nationwide incorporation, I'll be just fine.
It's much worse than that. The guy had the nunchuck charge dropped for a minor infraction. He fought it anyway even though he could have paid a $200 fine and been done with it.

Screwing you over because he knew better.

And to lawyers with egos as big as planets who can't cooperate with others and think they're smart enough to run the whole show. How often have we seen attorneys totally screw up an RKBA issue BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN?
Gorski was such a pain in the ***.

-Gene

yellowfin
02-11-2009, 8:54 AM
One thing not to entirely take for granted is that some people don't play as team players because they're not aware there is a team in play with a strategy at work.

motorhead
02-11-2009, 8:56 AM
i doubt the founding fathers had nunchuks in mind when framing the 2nd. as i recall there wasn't a single ninja among them. this guy will live in infamy in his district.

Meplat
02-11-2009, 9:00 AM
Once more, in english, please Gene?

Is that point good or bad?



The most important issue is that the 2nd Circuit didn't perform the analysis required by Duncan v. Louisiana (mostly because I'd expect the pro-se didn't know he should raise the issue.) As such, they didn't do the analysis "required by our later cases" as Scalia mentioned.

-Gene

Meplat
02-11-2009, 9:08 AM
I doubt they had communication satellites in mind when they created the first. If you go down that road you will be waylaid buy the pitchfork and musket brigands who claim they never dreamed of allowing "assault rifles".
:chris:


i doubt the founding fathers had nunchuks in mind when framing the 2nd. as i recall there wasn't a single ninja among them. this guy will live in infamy in his district.

CSDGuy
02-11-2009, 9:50 AM
If the 2nd Circuit didn't do the proper analysis under Duncan, that gives SCOTUS an easy out: they could simply remand back to them with instruction to perform the required analysis. The other thing is that SCOTUS could wait for either the 9th or the 7th to reach it's decision, find that there's a Circuit split, find for incorporation while smacking the 2nd for not performing the Duncan analysis (should they have done that on their own without being asked to do so?)...

Maybe I just need more coffee and read this again... ;)

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 9:56 AM
i doubt the founding fathers had nunchuks in mind when framing the 2nd. as i recall there wasn't a single ninja among them. this guy will live in infamy in his district.

Yes there were. They just didn't see them.

:rofl:

Seriously, this kind of reasoning hints at the discrepancy of knife laws vs. gun laws, for example. In California at least, concealed daggers get you prison, and concealed guns get you probation. I think the governments in the country have seen some weapons as honorable, and some as being only appropriate for criminal use. The founding fathers specifically mentioned firearms, but I haven't seen them refer to any other type of weapon in their writings. Did they refer to any other types of weapons?

The problem I have with specifically protecting firearms to the exclusion of everything else is that firearms will be obsolete some day in the future. We will need access to whatever the military and police are carrying in the future.

Well, hopefully the cases in the 7th and the 9th will carry the day.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 9:58 AM
If the 2nd Circuit didn't do the proper analysis under Duncan, that gives SCOTUS an easy out: they could simply remand back to them with instruction to perform the required analysis. The other thing is that SCOTUS could wait for either the 9th or the 7th to reach it's decision, find that there's a Circuit split, find for incorporation while smacking the 2nd for not performing the Duncan analysis (should they have done that on their own without being asked to do so?)...

Maybe I just need more coffee and read this again... ;)

It seems like SCOTUS wouldn't hear this case as is. I hope we're right...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

CSDGuy
02-11-2009, 10:07 AM
It seems like SCOTUS wouldn't hear this case as is. I hope we're right...

Regards,


SwissFluCase
You and me both (and a few others, I suspect).

Meplat
02-11-2009, 10:31 AM
Don't look now but the future is now. We are fighting tooth and claw to save 19th century technology. While we are not allowed to attach night vision devices to our antiques and it's not even an issue with most. :cuss:




The problem I have with specifically protecting firearms to the exclusion of everything else is that firearms will be obsolete some day in the future. We will need access to whatever the military and police are carrying in the future.

Well, hopefully the cases in the 7th and the 9th will carry the day.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 10:46 AM
Don't look now but the future is now. We are fighting tooth and claw to save 19th century technology. While we are not allowed to attach night vision devices to our antiques and it's not even an issue with most. :cuss:

I was under the impression that strictly passive devices were legal? Certainly thermal is. It needs to stay legal. IR lasers, however, are unobtainable. Some FDA regulation.

I'm really talking about things like electrolasers, and the new airburst round firing weapons that the military wants to replace all of the m16 type weapons with. Certainly I should have the right to carry a Taser. So far in California *that* is not infringed.

It is in this line of thinking that nunchucks *should* be protected. This case bothers me because of the potential issues with non-gun arms and their protection under the 2A.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Cypren
02-11-2009, 10:59 AM
It is in this line of thinking that nunchucks *should* be protected. This case bothers me because of the potential issues with non-gun arms and their protection under the 2A.

Completely agreed. It is extremely dangerous to paint ourselves into a corner with the definition that "keep and bear arms" refers only to chemical-explosive firearms, a technology which, at best, has a couple hundred years more life in it. The Founders interpreted "arms" to mean "weapons," of which rifles were only one type, and we need to keep that definition alive lest our grandchildren find themselves with 1911s against corrupt state officials carrying electronically-targeted smart rounds.

Decoligny
02-11-2009, 11:07 AM
i doubt the founding fathers had nunchuks in mind when framing the 2nd. as i recall there wasn't a single ninja among them. this guy will live in infamy in his district.

That's because Ninjas blend in so well. :shuriken::ninja:

FreedomIsNotFree
02-11-2009, 11:17 AM
I'm unclear why people keep making reference to CCW in this thread. Nothing in Heller and nothing in Nordyke will force the States to go shall issue. Of course, it could be an end result based on the right legal and civilian activity, but if you recall, Heller acknowledged that CCW has historically been a realm that can be regulated by the States.

Open carry is where we will have traction if Nordyke breaks our way. I believe the prospect, or reality, of CA's walking around the state with loaded pistols on their hips is what *may* result in a more reasonable CCW policy statewide.

Cypren
02-11-2009, 11:24 AM
Open carry is where we will have traction if Nordyke breaks our way. I believe the prospect, or reality, of CA's walking around the state with loaded pistols on their hips is what *may* result in a more reasonable CCW policy statewide.

I think the assumption is that the legislature will move in a panic to liberalize CCW issuance if they can no longer regulate open carry. But I think that even if we get incorporation, it will take a good five to ten years before the legislature is actually convinced that they can't regulate open carry. In the meantime, they'll be testing the waters to see just how far over the line they can go before the Supreme Court smacks them down. And probably fervently hoping all the while for a death on the Court so that Obama can swing the balance their way and return the 2A to meaninglessness.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-11-2009, 11:30 AM
I think the assumption is that the legislature will move in a panic to liberalize CCW issuance if they can no longer regulate open carry. But I think that even if we get incorporation, it will take a good five to ten years before the legislature is actually convinced that they can't regulate open carry. In the meantime, they'll be testing the waters to see just how far over the line they can go before the Supreme Court smacks them down. And probably fervently hoping all the while for a death on the Court so that Obama can swing the balance their way and return the 2A to meaninglessness.

The CA legislature will only institute *change* when its politically expedient for them to do so. Meaning, when poor little soccer moms cry about evil people walking around with guns on their hip...hence my comment about the right civilian activity.

As to the makeup of SCOTUS, the two most likely to leave next are already of the liberal wing so if either of them go, Stevens or Ginsberg, its not a net gain for the gun grabbers.

People need to understand that neither Heller or Nordyke is going to give them CCW here in CA.

bulgron
02-11-2009, 11:33 AM
I think the assumption is that the legislature will move in a panic to liberalize CCW issuance if they can no longer regulate open carry.

No, my assumption is that my CLEO will issue me a CCW if he thinks I'm going to be walking around town with a loaded gun on my hip, thereby generating "man with gun" phone calls. My hope is that we can keep the legislature tied up so that they can't pass any more gun bills until the state generally gets used to lots of people having CCWs.

bulgron
02-11-2009, 11:35 AM
People need to understand that neither Heller or Nordyke is going to give them CCW here in CA.

Of course not. But people also need to understand that Heller and Nordyke are bottom rungs on the ladder that we are required to clear before we can go after more on-point legal actions in our pursuit of shall-issue CCW.

Python2
02-11-2009, 11:45 AM
People need to understand that neither Heller or Nordyke is going to give them CCW here in CA.

Agreed, but we need it as a foundation to get to it eventually.

7x57
02-11-2009, 12:09 PM
Completely agreed. It is extremely dangerous to paint ourselves into a corner with the definition that "keep and bear arms" refers only to chemical-explosive firearms, a technology which, at best, has a couple hundred years more life in it.

It is clear that "arms" means "personal weapons," and does not exclude non-firearms. In fact, the colonists laid in a good supply of swords and bayonets, so historically swords are absolutely protected.

That said--recall that The Right People are very very adamant that strategy is planned carefully. Let's just assume, for the moment, that the 2A gives me the right to wear a backsword for personal protection (I have the *right* to be stupid and bring a knife to a gunfight, regardless of its advisability) or some such. Blades probably scare judges and juries more than guns, and plus they are going to absolutely believe that the only reason you chose such a weapon instead of a gun is that you had this terrible, pathological desire to hack someone to bits.

I bet if a 2A claim was made in such a case, it would lose and set a terrible precedent. I don't think now is the time to emphasize the fact that the 2A is about *weapons*, not guns per se. This is no different than the fact that M4s are unquestionably protected, but we can't possibly go after them now. Asserting a clear right at the wrong time can make it vanish forever. Bweise posted a link to a nice article by Don Kates (one of The Right People) pointing out that several states with good RKBA constitutions lost them in every meaningful way by poorly chosen litigation.

If we get to the point where we have built up a solid case law giving the 2A real meaning, then at some point the time will be right to talk about other weapons. The first one will surely be short blades, as in fact Americans *do* quite commonly choose pocket folders and the like for protection. I seem to recall that when Heller came down the knife people were talking about it helping them if we can get good follow-on legislation. But they also understood that we (gunnies) have to go first. Besides the fact that Heller was about guns in particular and guns are the most popular and effective weapon Americans choose for self-defense, we have a *lot* more organization and clout than the knife lobby (to the extent it even exists) does.

It seems to me that if/when we *do* get to the point of talking about knives, we should be talking about what the beginning of knife regulation in the US really was (IIRC): a nakedly racist and classist way of disarming people too poor to buy a gun. It was the same logic as Saturday Night Special legislation.

7x57

Cypren
02-11-2009, 12:15 PM
As to the makeup of SCOTUS, the two most likely to leave next are already of the liberal wing so if either of them go, Stevens or Ginsberg, its not a net gain for the gun grabbers.

Agreed. But Kennedy and Scalia are getting up there in age and either one of them has a decent chance of dying or being forced to retire, if not within the next four years, certainly within the next eight. And then there are always accidental deaths, not to mention the ever-looming specter of political assassination. (While it may seem far fetched, I do not discount the possibility that at least one nutjob might see the opportunity to slant the Court for the forseeable future with the Presidency and Congress firmly under left-wing control and be willing to sacrifice himself to do it. "For the children," of course. :rolleyes:)

My point is just that the Court has been relatively stable for a while, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it will remain so. Obama, in particular, worries me, since he is casting himself as the reincarnation of FDR -- and we all remember what FDR threatened to do when he didn't like answering to the Court.

Cypren
02-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Let's just assume, for the moment, that the 2A gives me the right to wear a backsword for personal protection (I have the *right* to be stupid and bring a knife to a gunfight, regardless of its advisability) or some such.

Amusing anecdote: I have a friend in Australia who actually carries a steel longsword (under an overcoat) for personal protection when he's in the more dangerous areas of Sydney, since firearms are banned. And he's actually had to draw it once when threatened by a thug with a knife. Unfortunately, there was no one around to snap a picture -- but I bet the look on the would-be robber's face was priceless.

I agree with what you've said, and I'm glad that we've got attorneys on our side who are carefully planning the reclamation of our freedoms. Let's hope more impatient idiots don't screw it up in the meantime.

ke6guj
02-11-2009, 12:26 PM
Amusing anecdote: I have a friend in Australia who actually carries a steel longsword (under an overcoat) for personal protection when he's in the more dangerous areas of Sydney, since firearms are banned. And he's actually had to draw it once when threatened by a thug with a knife. Unfortunately, there was no one around to snap a picture -- but I bet the look on the would-be robber's face was priceless.
.They did get video of it.

01NHcTM5IA4

7x57
02-11-2009, 12:35 PM
Amusing anecdote: I have a friend in Australia who actually carries a steel longsword (under an overcoat) for personal protection when he's in the more dangerous areas of Sydney, since firearms are banned. And he's actually had to draw it once when threatened by a thug with a knife. Unfortunately, there was no one around to snap a picture -- but I bet the look on the would-be robber's face was priceless.


Wonderful. I imagine that's scarier than having a gun pulled on you, for cultural reasons.

But you mean to tell me swords aren't forbidden in Aussieland? Or is it just that carrying is illegal but at least owning them per se is not?


I agree with what you've said, and I'm glad that we've got attorneys on our side who are carefully planning the reclamation of our freedoms. Let's hope more impatient idiots don't screw it up in the meantime.

Yeah, that's a nightmare. OTOH as far as I can tell previous 2A litigation was done solely and uniformly by idiots, whack-jobs, and dullards of the first order. We can't possibly screw it up that badly this time, but unfortunately this is probably a one-time effort with no do-overs, ever.

7x57

Cypren
02-11-2009, 12:56 PM
But you mean to tell me swords aren't forbidden in Aussieland? Or is it just that carrying is illegal but at least owning them per se is not?

Strangely, no, they are not. I guess they figure that a person armed with a thirty-six inch piece of steel is going to be laughed at, not feared, and won't pose much of a threat to law enforcement should an arrest be necessary. Plus, it's hard to hide that big of a weapon and pull it out on an unsuspecting person.

Clearly, they haven't visited us in Irvine. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E4D7143AF933A05755C0A9659C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

7x57
02-11-2009, 1:08 PM
Strangely, no, they are not. I guess they figure that a person armed with a thirty-six inch piece of steel is going to be laughed at, not feared, and won't pose much of a threat to law enforcement should an arrest be necessary.


Yah, unless it's in a small confined space. Don Inosanto seems to have convinced US LEOs to be very very respectful of blades in close quarters. :chris:

Anyone who thinks blades are something to laugh at is an idiot, but I'm quite happy not to bring that to their attention any faster than the crazies do.

What your friend does is no crazier than the poor oppressed subjects of New York City, some of whom are now keeping Cap & Ball revolvers for home defense because somehow "antique" weapons slipped by the jackbooted thugs that run the city. Well, some might laugh, but if someone pulled one on me I surely wouldn't.

Moral: weapons do not get less deadly just because they are no longer optimal.


Plus, it's hard to hide that big of a weapon and pull it out on an unsuspecting person.


Generally swords belong on your opposite hip anyway. And personally, I have no particular problem with people wearing swords. :D

However, codpieces, pumpkin pants, and those wierd renaissance neck ruffs should be banned with heavy fines for inflicting their eye-wounding hideousness on the poor unsuspecting public. :43:

7x57

Cypren
02-11-2009, 1:13 PM
Anyone who thinks blades are something to laugh at is an idiot, but I'm quite happy not to bring that to their attention any faster than the crazies do.

...

Moral: weapons do not get less deadly just because they are no longer optimal.

Completely agreed. My buddy practices with that blade five times a week and I would rate his chances against a gunman as better than even if he starts within thirty feet. I've a lot more training and practice at tactical gunfighting than the average mugger, and I still wouldn't risk my life taking him on at that range.

7x57
02-11-2009, 1:15 PM
Completely agreed. My buddy practices with that blade five times a week and I would rate his chances against a gunman as better than even if he starts within thirty feet. I've a lot more training and practice at tactical gunfighting than the average mugger, and I still wouldn't risk my life taking him on at that range.

Well, the results usually quoted was that nobody could draw fast enough to defend themselves from a blade within 21' of Don Inosanto (I think his knife was already drawn, but maybe not). Don's just a wee bit better than most of us, but still....

7x57

Cypren
02-11-2009, 1:19 PM
Well, the results usually quoted was that nobody could draw fast enough to defend themselves from a blade within 21' of Don Inosanto (I think his knife was already drawn, but maybe not).

Hence the reason I said 30'. If it's 21', I consider it a foregone conclusion. :90:

ke6guj
02-11-2009, 1:21 PM
Well, the results usually quoted was that nobody could draw fast enough to defend themselves from a blade within 21' of Don Inosanto (I think his knife was already drawn, but maybe not). Don's just a wee bit better than most of us, but still....

7x57

I was talking to an LEO buddy today about the Tueller Drill. He did say it was scary how, during training, an attacker could cover that 21 feet. And that they were on you before you could draw and fire. So, basically, with that knowledge, if he sees a knife in close like that, he's clearing leather even if the subject is not showing an "active threat".

7x57
02-11-2009, 1:26 PM
I was talking to an LEO buddy today about the Tueller Drill. He did say it was scary how, during training, an attacker could cover that 21 feet. And that they were on you before you could draw and fire. So, basically, with that knowledge, if he sees a knife in close like that, he's clearing leather even if the subject is not showing an "active threat".

Darn right. I would, too, and take the risk having to convince a jury that I was justified in brandishing.

Or I would if I lived in a free county where I could carry....

7x57

DDT
02-11-2009, 1:28 PM
Darn right. I would, too, and take the risk having to convince a jury that I was justified in brandishing.

Or I would if I lived in a free county where I could carry....

7x57

Can you brandish in response? I would assume that once the "bad guy" is displaying his knife that drawing down is merely a defensive action and not brandishing at 21' or at 40' or potentially further.

7x57
02-11-2009, 1:31 PM
Can you brandish in response? I would assume that once the "bad guy" is displaying his knife that drawing down is merely a defensive action and not brandishing at 21' or at 40' or potentially further.

If the cops or DA are hostile I'd have to pay just to make them obey the law even if totally squeaky clean. I mean from a charge of brandishing, frivolous or not.

7x57

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 2:01 PM
This is why I am eagerly awaiting the compact gun camera. I really want one. If I ever have to defend myself, I want the judge and jury to see firsthand what I saw.

NYC certainly bears closer scrutiny than just about anywhere else in the country. It seems that just about every weapon, lethal or less lethal, is very difficult or impossible to get. In my mind it would make a 2A challenge under Heller an easier proposition, if not for nunchuck-nuts screwing things up for us(them).

It would seem that any jurisdiction that would even ban pepper spray or heavily regulate it would be low hanging fruit.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
02-11-2009, 2:46 PM
NYC certainly bears closer scrutiny than just about anywhere else in the country. It seems that just about every weapon, lethal or less lethal, is very difficult or impossible to get. In my mind it would make a 2A challenge under Heller an easier proposition, if not for nunchuck-nuts screwing things up for us(them).

It would seem that any jurisdiction that would even ban pepper spray or heavily regulate it would be low hanging fruit.


It might have been if that stupid nunchaku lawsuit had not screwed up the entire circuit. Now I suspect it is the hardest nut to crack unless and until SCOTUS spanks them.

7x57

Charliegone
02-11-2009, 5:09 PM
It might have been if that stupid nunchaku lawsuit had not screwed up the entire circuit. Now I suspect it is the hardest nut to crack unless and until SCOTUS spanks them.

7x57

I was rooting for this guy when he took his case against Spitzer, but now I'm freakin' pissed that he completely ruined any chance for an easy incorporation in the 2nd circuit. Dumb***!:mad:

Experimentalist
02-11-2009, 7:34 PM
Gorski was such a pain in the ***.

-Gene

Does the use of the past tense imply that Mr. Gorski is no longer a threat to the 2nd amendment?

Tarn_Helm
02-12-2009, 5:17 AM
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2009/02/heller-uh-we-cant-take-em-to-court.html

It looks like the second circuit said no to incorporation.
Sucks!
I pray Nordyke goes smoothly.
anyone have any ideas?

Incorporation will be fought and won at the SCOTUS level--but no telling when.
:smash:

Tarn_Helm
02-12-2009, 5:30 AM
Completely agreed. My buddy practices with that blade five times a week and I would rate his chances against a gunman as better than even if he starts within thirty feet. I've a lot more training and practice at tactical gunfighting than the average mugger, and I still wouldn't risk my life taking him on at that range.

+1
That is for sure. (http://www.thegunzone.com/mos/edged_weapon.html) (<--Warning: Disturbing, gory images--do not click this link if you are squeamish.)