PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Supreme Court: Gun control on culture war's front burner


Ding126
10-18-2009, 3:12 PM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/18/US-Supreme-Court-Gun-control-on-culture-wars-front-burner/UPI-10191255846500/

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- As the U.S. Supreme Court makes its stately way into the new term, a case over the horizon promises to hit the 20,000 gun control laws in this country with the impact of a 9mm round.

The prep work came last year in District of Columbia vs. Heller. A narrow 5-4 majority struck down the gun control law in the nation's capital, and for the moment settled an argument over just what the Second Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, actually means.

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The argument has centered on whether that language means a state militia has a right to bear arms, or whether there is an individual constitutional right to have a weapon.

The Supreme Court majority, in an opinion written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, said it means there is an individual right to that Glock or Beretta.

The gun control debate can be an emotional one for those on either side of the fence, such as members of the National Rifle Association or the anti-handgun Brady Campaign. Many see it as a red state, blue state issue, part of that "culture war" or "Kulturkampf" characterized by Scalia in dissent in 1996, and by conservative Patrick Buchanan in a series of speeches.

Apparently, no issue provokes more fear in members of Congress with rural constituencies. Analysts in West Virginia have pointed out that the state voted Republican in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, ensuring George W. Bush's victory, in part from fear of gun control.

Scalia, however, said it all comes down to the meaning of words.

The Washington gun law banned handgun possession "by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns," and providing "separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun." It did allow the police chief to issue 1-year licenses, but required those few authorized to own a firearm to keep them unloaded and dissembled, or made safe by a trigger lock.

Scalia's opinion, handed down last June 26, said the handgun ban and the trigger lock requirement violated the Constitution: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

But what about that clause dealing with the militia?

Scalia calls it the "prefatory clause," and calls the second part of the amendment, the one dealing with "the right of the people," the "operative clause."

The prefatory clause clarifies the amendment -- sets up a justification for it -- but "apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause," Scalia said.

Moreover, the right to bear arms was not initially established in the Second Amendment, Scalia wrote. The amendment "codified a pre-existing right" dating back to the days when the Catholic English King James II tried to keep Protestants from obtaining weapons. Later, William and Mary guaranteed Protestants the right to bear arms in the Declaration of Rights, which became the English Bill of Rights.

But government is not powerless when it comes to regulating arms, the court majority said in the opinion's syllabus:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogs. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

As sweeping as the opinion in Heller is, advocates of gun rights and gun control are waiting for the other shoe to drop this term.

Heller recognized an individual's right to bear arms, but the Supreme Court still has to decide whether Heller should be extended beyond federal jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia to "every city, county, and state in the nation," the Christian Science Monitor reports.

That question is central to McDonald vs. Chicago, a challenge to that city's gun control registration restrictions, which the high court has agreed to hear later this year. Though not yet scheduled, the case should be heard sometime in January or later, with a ruling handed down before the end of the term in late June.

Among the questions in the case: How should the Bill of Rights be applied to the states, as opposed to the federal government -- in the early days of the Republic, it was assumed that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution applied only to the federal government. It was only later that the courts, including the Supreme Court, used the 14th Amendment to apply them to state and local governments.

Legal Times correspondent Tony Mauro points out a group of liberal and conservative academics are pressing for a change, a "new pathway," in the Chicago challenge.

For the most part, in the 20th century the courts have used the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause -- due process in its simplest meaning essentially describes fair treatment in the legal process -- to make the states honor individual rights.

But, "that new pathway runs through the long-dormant 'privileges or immunities' clause of the 14th Amendment," Mauro reports. "In the view of scholars and historians of all political stripes, the clause provides the strongest legal foundation for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The language -- 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States' -- is broad and clear, advocates say, and could be used to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights to the states, wholesale."

Legal niceties aside, McDonald vs. Chicago should have a real impact on the streets, especially if the five-justice majority in Heller decides the judgment in that case should apply nationwide.

The National Rifle Association says there are 20,000 "gun control" laws in states and local communities.

So far, no police department has filed a friend-of-the-court brief either supporting or opposing the Chicago challenge at the Supreme Court.



© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

bodger
10-18-2009, 3:20 PM
Good article.

20,000 separate gun laws in this country, eh. Most of them designed to stifle our gun freedom more than to deter crime.

forgiven
10-18-2009, 3:41 PM
^^^+1

383green
10-18-2009, 3:43 PM
a case over the horizon promises to hit the 20,000 gun control laws in this country with the impact of a 9mm round

Clearly not written by a gunny, or they would have written "impact of a .45ACP round". :D

CaliforniaCarry
10-18-2009, 3:44 PM
a case over the horizon promises to hit the 20,000 gun control laws in this country with the impact of a 9mm round.

Actually, I think it'll be more like a .50 BMG :43:

kf6tac
10-18-2009, 3:59 PM
Actually, I think it'll be more like a .50 BMG :43:

But, but, but.... .50 BMG is eeeeeeeeeevil!

383green
10-18-2009, 4:00 PM
But, but, but.... .50 BMG is eeeeeeeeeevil!

Good point. How about 105mm APDS? :p

Ding126
10-18-2009, 4:05 PM
From this article, all that you guys can contribute is elementary, play ground comments about calibers...

locosway
10-18-2009, 4:07 PM
I never did understand how a state could pick and choose which rights to give its citizens.

Lone_Gunman
10-18-2009, 4:13 PM
Actually, I think it'll be more like a .50 BMG :43:

That's exactly what I thought when I read it, or maybe 20mm.

Lone_Gunman
10-18-2009, 4:15 PM
From this article, all that you guys can contribute is elementary, play ground comments about calibers...

OK,OK. This article really summed up the DC verdict nicely. It gives me a lot of hope that there will be change. :p

kf6tac
10-18-2009, 4:30 PM
From this article, all that you guys can contribute is elementary, play ground comments about calibers...

Well, considering that the rest of the article is nothing new, there's not much to say about it.

hoffmang
10-18-2009, 5:10 PM
I never did understand how a state could pick and choose which rights to give its citizens.

In 1790 it was assumed no state would violate it's citizens' rights. Much of that was due to the fact that total population of the largest state (VA) was 750K and the total population of the US was ~4M. Compare to the City of San Francisco at just at 800K in 2009.

However, post the Civil War it became obvious that States weren't all sweetness and light - especially to freedman and white abolitionists. Hence the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

yellowfin
10-18-2009, 6:12 PM
Ya know, Gene, other than the Cruikshank ruling it really does make me wonder how the civil rights efforts in the 60's didn't demand gun rights back as part of the whole package of rolling back Jim Crow laws. Was the omission deliberately selective or just a stupid mistake? It seems real dumb to be asking for rights back and leave some out.

Joe
10-18-2009, 6:15 PM
cool article

locosway
10-18-2009, 6:29 PM
In 1790 it was assumed no state would violate it's citizens' rights. Much of that was due to the fact that total population of the largest state (VA) was 750K and the total population of the US was ~4M. Compare to the City of San Francisco at just at 800K in 2009.

However, post the Civil War it became obvious that States weren't all sweetness and light - especially to freedman and white abolitionists. Hence the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

Logic would seem to imply that any state to secede into the US would be governed by US Constitution. It doesn't make sense to have a US (National) Constitution which limits government and then to have a state choose which rights to give or take from the people.

I understand in 1790 how they thought, and how anti's think now. I just can't see any judge or congress going against what is clearly defined in the Constitution because a state has it's own rights.

locosway
10-18-2009, 6:31 PM
Ya know, Gene, other than the Cruikshank ruling it really does make me wonder how the civil rights efforts in the 60's didn't demand gun rights back as part of the whole package of rolling back Jim Crow laws. Was the omission deliberately selective or just a stupid mistake? It seems real dumb to be asking for rights back and leave some out.

I'm not very familiar with the civil rights movement outside of the basics. It is something I do want to know very well in the future. However, I'm going to assume that since minorities were pushing for equal rights they left out the 2A for obvious reasons during those times.

Telperion
10-18-2009, 6:31 PM
Ya know, Gene, other than the Cruikshank ruling it really does make me wonder how the civil rights efforts in the 60's didn't demand gun rights back as part of the whole package of rolling back Jim Crow laws. Was the omission deliberately selective or just a stupid mistake? It seems real dumb to be asking for rights back and leave some out.

By the '60s the Ku Klux Klan of the Cruikshank era was long gone, and people's focus had shifted toward equality in representation and everyday life, instead of defending themselves against death squads. Urbanization was also decreasing gun ownership, and I think the RKBA angle was muted to make things appear less radical and since it had less recognizable relevance than in generations past.

HondaMasterTech
10-18-2009, 6:31 PM
I never did understand how a state could pick and choose which rights to give its citizens.

For the same reason why a criminal didn't commit a crime unless he got caught. Until someone chalenges it, the states governments will do as they please.

Gray Peterson
10-18-2009, 7:08 PM
Ya know, Gene, other than the Cruikshank ruling it really does make me wonder how the civil rights efforts in the 60's didn't demand gun rights back as part of the whole package of rolling back Jim Crow laws. Was the omission deliberately selective or just a stupid mistake? It seems real dumb to be asking for rights back and leave some out.

Simply put, even the Warren Court was unwilling to overturn Slaughter-House, and the Supreme Court at that time were more willing to use the due process clause as it was a string of decisions from 30 years before with the Gitlow v. New York.

hoffmang
10-18-2009, 7:20 PM
Ya know, Gene, other than the Cruikshank ruling it really does make me wonder how the civil rights efforts in the 60's didn't demand gun rights back as part of the whole package of rolling back Jim Crow laws. Was the omission deliberately selective or just a stupid mistake? It seems real dumb to be asking for rights back and leave some out.
By the 1950's in the South the only real racist gun control left was CCW permitting. However everyone just carried (black or white) and no self respecting officer - even if he was KKK - would try to press charges against a black person for carrying. Remember that the Deacons for Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice) had ready access to arms. It was only in the North, Midwest, and the "progressive" states that gun laws were odd (California, Kansas.)
Logic would seem to imply that any state to secede into the US would be governed by US Constitution. It doesn't make sense to have a US (National) Constitution which limits government and then to have a state choose which rights to give or take from the people.

The Bill of Rights only constrained the Federal Government when it was originally enacted. Note that the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law." Now, the concepts in the first 8 amendments were assumed to be natural rights that no state could abridge - however the limited federal government meant that the limited federal judiciary didn't have the authority to force states to comply with the Federal Bill of Rights. That's the whole point behind the 14th Amendment - to give Congress and the Courts the power to bind the States to a minimum of liberty. The US DOJ exists only because of post civil war reconstruction.

-Gene

Rem222
10-18-2009, 8:13 PM
Good article.

20,000 separate gun laws in this country, eh. Most of them designed to stifle our gun freedom more than to deter crime.

Yes and 19,999 of them are here....

yellowfin
10-19-2009, 6:09 AM
I wouldn't say that CA has a monopoly on it by a long shot. MD, NY, MA, CT, IL, and HI have messed up laws too. NJ is worse than CA in a lot of ways.

dixieD
10-19-2009, 6:32 AM
Good article.

I think there are two fights here. The first is obviously right to carry and bear arms by individuals, and this is the one that needs immediate address.

The second lies in the implication of the prefatory clause that says that people have the right to form militias. The anti-militia laws in this state and others are also a violation of the 2nd A in my opinion.

Mitch
10-19-2009, 7:07 AM
Ya know, Gene, other than the Cruikshank ruling it really does make me wonder how the civil rights efforts in the 60's didn't demand gun rights back as part of the whole package of rolling back Jim Crow laws.

Two reasons:

1. Most of the civil rights activists were urbanites for whom gun rights were not front burner issues, though back then most lefties were in favor of gun rights (the left/right dichotomy didn't really emerge until the 70s, and before then you most often found conservatives proposing gun control, to keep guns out of the hands of Negroes and other riff-raff).

2. The JFK assassination suddenly made gun control fashionable and led directly to the 1968 GCA.

Meplat
10-19-2009, 7:17 AM
Clearly not written by a gunny, or they would have written "impact of a .45ACP round". :D

Nope. .50 BMG :43:

Digital_Boy
10-19-2009, 7:50 AM
If I understand this correctly, the McDonald case could potentially restore our P&I too, right? And that would in turn lead to DAs offices having to get a grand jury indictment to charge for felony crimes?

That right there is just as big a win as b**ch slapping the disarmament crowd.

POLICESTATE
10-19-2009, 8:15 AM
Over 20,000 gun control laws, you'd think they would have eliminated gun violence by now :rolleyes:

Fools.

Meplat
10-19-2009, 8:30 AM
I was there in the sixties. We fought tooth and nail for six years to stop what eventually became GCA-68. We were fighting lefties. Dan Rather put on a lengthy CBS special in 62 or 63 titled “Murder And The Right To Bare Arms”. It was an unadulterated info-mercial for gun control, filled with lies and fabricated statistics. Dan Rather was just as left then as now, and just as loose with the truth. The only good to come of it was that I learned while still in high school that the liberal media are a pack of liars! :43:



Two reasons:

1. Most of the civil rights activists were urbanites for whom gun rights were not front burner issues, though back then most lefties were in favor of gun rights (the left/right dichotomy didn't really emerge until the 70s, and before then you most often found conservatives proposing gun control, to keep guns out of the hands of Negroes and other riff-raff).

2. The JFK assassination suddenly made gun control fashionable and led directly to the 1968 GCA.

hoffmang
10-19-2009, 4:06 PM
If I understand this correctly, the McDonald case could potentially restore our P&I too, right? And that would in turn lead to DAs offices having to get a grand jury indictment to charge for felony crimes?

That right there is just as big a win as b**ch slapping the disarmament crowd.

Yep. However, its not clear that Grand Jury necessarily works better to protect individual rights - it's one of those things that reasonable folks can disagree upon.

-Gene

7x57
10-19-2009, 4:19 PM
Yep. However, its not clear that Grand Jury necessarily works better to protect individual rights - it's one of those things that reasonable folks can disagree upon.


Like gun control, I don't think it's simply an issue of what is the better policy. The Grand Jury system puts citizens in the loop keeps the law from being a state monopoly. So does the petit jury. And that's why, I think, the states are absolutely, positively, determined to do every possible thing to avoid giving them the power they had in 1800.

But in terms of efficiency, it seems their strength is their weakness. If you give citizens the power of the grand jury, they have greater freedom--but of course "free people are free to do bad things." We know that freedom was used for segregation in the South--and for the same purpose by the OJ jury.

But in the end if you want to be free you have to accept the bad with the good--we've lost many liberties because people wanted to make sure they couldn't be used in "bad ways." God preserve us from asking the government to take away "only the bad parts."

7x57

CaliforniaCarry
10-19-2009, 4:30 PM
God preserve us from asking the government to take away "only the bad parts."

Amen to that.

B Strong
10-19-2009, 5:04 PM
By the '60s the Ku Klux Klan of the Cruikshank era was long gone, and people's focus had shifted toward equality in representation and everyday life, instead of defending themselves against death squads. Urbanization was also decreasing gun ownership, and I think the RKBA angle was muted to make things appear less radical and since it had less recognizable relevance than in generations past.

Tell that to James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice4.html

The Klan never went anywhere, it's still alive today, even in California.

hoffmang
10-19-2009, 6:21 PM
The Klan never went anywhere, it's still alive today, even in California.

Yes, however it's ranks have, shall we say, thinned...

-Gene

jamesob
10-19-2009, 8:47 PM
20,000 gun laws in wich 19,999 were made in california.

tube_ee
10-19-2009, 8:56 PM
Yes, however it's ranks have, shall we say, thinned...

-Gene

Oddly enough, I'd say the opposite... No sense of the word "thin" applies to most of those yahoos.

--Shannon

7x57
10-19-2009, 9:33 PM
Oddly enough, I'd say the opposite... No sense of the word "thin" applies to most of those yahoos.


Either way, the Klan was scary when they permeated society. Today the Klan is a marginalized bunch of kooks without power or influence. Indeed, if you're a real ideological racist you'd have to be also stupid to associate with the Klan, as the name itself is poison. I'd guess that the least dangerous of the bunch to society are the ones who self-marginalize under the rubric of the klan.

This is much like the least dangerous animal-rightistas are the ones who gather under the mostly laughingstock name of PETA. The really dangerous ones were smart enough to take over the Humane Society of the United States, and play smarter.

I was going to add some comments about Socialists and big statists who gather under the banner of something else, but chose not to because the example banners were going to enrage our resident liberal gunnies. :chris:

7x57

dantodd
10-19-2009, 11:17 PM
Yep. However, its not clear that Grand Jury necessarily works better to protect individual rights - it's one of those things that reasonable folks can disagree upon.

-Gene

I'm not sure I understand this. Would not the grand jury only hear cases which the DA had already decided to prosecute? Therefore a grand jury would never send a case to trial that would otherwise have been a decline to file by the DA only kick cases the DA wanted to prosecute. Never having to worry about it has made me lax in finding out how a grand jury works so a brief education would be greatly appreciated.

nick
10-19-2009, 11:55 PM
For the same reason why a criminal didn't commit a crime unless he got caught. Until someone chalenges it, the states governments will do as they please.

The criminal still commits a crime. He just doesn't get prosecuted for it unless he's caught.

Mitch
10-20-2009, 5:29 AM
Dan Rather was just as left then as now, and just as loose with the truth.

When I refer to "lefties" in the 1960s, I am not talking about Dan Rather. Try Abbie Hoffman or David Horowitz.

Aegis
10-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Gun issues will play a major role in the 2010 and 2012 elections. The current administration tried to claim during the last election they would not infringe on the 2A, and the exact opposite has happened.

GaryV
10-20-2009, 7:40 PM
Logic would seem to imply that any state to secede into the US would be governed by US Constitution. It doesn't make sense to have a US (National) Constitution which limits government and then to have a state choose which rights to give or take from the people.

I understand in 1790 how they thought, and how anti's think now. I just can't see any judge or congress going against what is clearly defined in the Constitution because a state has it's own rights.

Except this takes a backwards view of the relationship between the states and the federal government. The original states pre-existed the federal government, and the restrictions they embodied in the federal constitution were meant to protect the states themselves from the federal government as much as they were to protect individuals. The states were not necessarily bound by the same restrictions, nor did they intend themselves to be. For example, the 1st amendment prohibition on making laws respecting religion was not originally meant at all as a protection of an individual's religious freedoms, but as a protection of official state religions from federal interference.

Not only was it not an individual right being protected, but the very existence of the prohibition in the federal constitution was specifically because the states reserved the power to themselves to pass exactly the types of laws they were prohibiting the federal government from enacting. The individual states fully intended and wanted the power to pass laws more restrictive of our rights than they allowed the federal government to do, because they viewed themselves as being individual nations or "states" (as opposed to "provences" or some other term of subdivision) that would have individual character, just as individual European nations do, joined only by a relatively weak federal government without such power. The restrictions were meant to keep the federal government weaker than the states, not to weaken all levels of government equally.

Doug L
10-21-2009, 7:16 AM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/18/US-Supreme-Court-Gun-control-on-culture-wars-front-burner/UPI-10191255846500/

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- ...The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...The Supreme Court majority, in an opinion written by [clear-thinking] Justice Antonin Scalia, said it means there is an individual right to [own a firearm].

...Scalia...said it all comes down to the meaning of words.

...Scalia's opinion..."The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

But what about that clause dealing with the militia??? Scalia calls it the "prefatory clause," and calls the second part of the amendment, the one dealing with "the right of the people," the "operative clause."

The prefatory clause clarifies the amendment -- sets up a justification for it -- but "apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause," Scalia said.

Thank you for posting this article. Coincidentally, in order to clarify the meaning and intent of the 2nd. Amendment in my own mind, I had myself recently been contemplating the hierarchy of the phraseology.
Fortunately, we have Justice Scalia, whose written opinion describes it precisely.

...advocates of gun rights and gun control are waiting for the other shoe to drop this term.

Let's hope it's not just a shoe that drops, but, maybe, a very large boot!!!

DrjonesUSA
10-21-2009, 3:31 PM
I never did understand how a state could pick and choose which rights to give its citizens.


Well, when we allow them to start treating our rights as mere privileges, this is what we get.....

7x57
10-21-2009, 4:27 PM
Gun issues will play a major role in the 2010 and 2012 elections. The current administration tried to claim during the last election they would not infringe on the 2A, and the exact opposite has happened.

Reality check. Nobody can call me an apologist for the administration, but how precisely have they infringed on the 2A? I'd say they've pointed avoided touching the subject as though it were a plasma arc, because they have the institutional memory of the Clinton administration and have an aversion to burning away body parts.

If you mean they'd really really like to add new Infringements, sure, there's little doubt about that. But the trial balloon was shot down by a hail of fire from friend and foe alike, and nothing further of great importance has happened.

If they do well in 2010, they might feel strong enough. But they're not going to.

7x57

Quser.619
10-21-2009, 5:23 PM
Personally I don't think it is anything that they have done so far, I believe Heller caught them unaware & did nothing more than strengthen their resolve to put someone in the Executive Office that shared an ideological background & would appoint Justices that would interpret the laws in a more "progressive" way. Having Heller & hopefully McDonald ruled in a pro-2A way has set them back in the interim at the very least. But don't think that Obama wouldn't limit guns if he could, he would & his voting record in Ill. shows this.

Aegis
10-21-2009, 8:07 PM
Reality check. Nobody can call me an apologist for the administration, but how precisely have they infringed on the 2A? I'd say they've pointed avoided touching the subject as though it were a plasma arc, because they have the institutional memory of the Clinton administration and have an aversion to burning away body parts.

If you mean they'd really really like to add new Infringements, sure, there's little doubt about that. But the trial balloon was shot down by a hail of fire from friend and foe alike, and nothing further of great importance has happened.

If they do well in 2010, they might feel strong enough. But they're not going to.

7x57

I would say putting Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is an infringement. Want to bet on what side she takes on McDonald?

bellson
10-21-2009, 8:18 PM
Good point. How about 105mm APDS? :p

I was just thinking 105MM Beehives....You beat me to it!

bellson
10-21-2009, 8:19 PM
I never did understand how a state could pick and choose which rights to give its citizens.

That is the problem with the Law, there are lawyers involved...

dantodd
10-21-2009, 8:30 PM
I would say putting Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is an infringement. Want to bet on what side she takes on McDonald?

Sure, I'll take 2:1 for $100 that she votes to incorporate.

HondaMasterTech
10-21-2009, 8:39 PM
Reality check. Nobody can call me an apologist for the administration, but how precisely have they infringed on the 2A? I'd say they've pointed avoided touching the subject as though it were a plasma arc, because they have the institutional memory of the Clinton administration and have an aversion to burning away body parts.

If you mean they'd really really like to add new Infringements, sure, there's little doubt about that. But the trial balloon was shot down by a hail of fire from friend and foe alike, and nothing further of great importance has happened.

If they do well in 2010, they might feel strong enough. But they're not going to.

7x57

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only thing the current adminstration actually done was to sign a bill allowing carry in National/State parks?

I agree, though, that isn't exactly what they want...

yellowfin
10-21-2009, 8:50 PM
Appointing an attorney general, Sec of State, numerous czars, and soon to come Ginsburg's replacement (unless a miracle happens and she lives 3 1/2 more years, which I hope she does) on in addition to SotoB****, while not actively making anti gun laws is like putting 5 snakes in a cage with a mouse--technically you're not killing the mouse yourself but...

HondaMasterTech
10-21-2009, 8:55 PM
I don't want to be the mouse.

7x57
10-21-2009, 9:08 PM
Appointing an attorney general, Sec of State, numerous czars, and soon to come Ginsburg's replacement (unless a miracle happens and she lives 3 1/2 more years, which I hope she does) on in addition to SotoB****, while not actively making anti gun laws is like putting 5 snakes in a cage with a mouse--technically you're not killing the mouse yourself but...

We dig in behind our Mannerheim line, they mass the Soviet army on their side of the border. Technically, nobody has invaded Finland yet, even though Finns find it suddenly difficult to buy life insurance.

The difference is we have a shot at making sure we never have to fight the Winter War again.

7x57

dantodd
10-21-2009, 9:14 PM
We dig in behind our Mannerheim line, they mass the Soviet army on their side of the border. Technically, nobody has invaded Finland yet, even though Finns find it suddenly difficult to buy life insurance.

The difference is we have a shot at making sure we never have to fight the Winter War again.

7x57

Speaking of Finland, this guy makes Audie Murphy look like a piker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4


Well.... not a piker but it is certainly an amazing accomplishment.

7x57
10-21-2009, 9:33 PM
Speaking of Finland, this guy makes Audie Murphy look like a piker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4


Yah, Simo is the man and no joke. So much for needing fancy equipment.


Well.... not a piker but it is certainly an amazing accomplishment.

This is the part that gets me: "In 100 days." :eek:

His kill total is probably reachable by the right man in the right circumstances. But a sustained rate of five a day seems untouchable. What were the Soviets *doing* out there--lining up with big red targets on their chests?

Practice.

7x57

dantodd
10-21-2009, 9:58 PM
But a sustained rate of five a day seems untouchable. What were the Soviets *doing* out there--lining up with big red targets on their chests?


5 a day is taking the most conservative numbers AND excluding the 200 he took out in CQB with his Suomi. That brings it up to at least 7 a day and if you take the larger numbers it could be as much as 10 a day. That is an amazing number of combat kills all done in subzero temps and, as you said, at a sustained pace over more than 3 months. That is an absolutely amazing display of endurance and patriotism.

yellowfin
10-21-2009, 10:06 PM
We dig in behind our Mannerheim line, they mass the Soviet army on their side of the border. Technically, nobody has invaded Finland yet, even though Finns find it suddenly difficult to buy life insurance.

The difference is we have a shot at making sure we never have to fight the Winter War again.

7x57Quite nice, but maybe it's just my different tastes that I'd like us bombing Izmash, Tula, and Murmansk to shut down their machine entirely so that not only do we not have to fight the Winter War, but there won't be an army on their part to wonder whether we have to fight them or not. Like Ted Nugent, I don't like repeat offenders, I like discontinued offenders. Do not beat the Carthaginians to fight them another year, topple their walls and salt their fields so there will not be another Carthage again.

7x57
10-21-2009, 10:20 PM
Do not beat the Carthaginians to fight them another year, topple their walls and salt their fields so there will not be another Carthage again.

Carthago delenda est! is it, Cato?

7x57

nick
10-21-2009, 10:21 PM
Yah, Simo is the man and no joke. So much for needing fancy equipment.



This is the part that gets me: "In 100 days." :eek:

His kill total is probably reachable by the right man in the right circumstances. But a sustained rate of five a day seems untouchable. What were the Soviets *doing* out there--lining up with big red targets on their chests?

Practice.

7x57


1. Simo is the man. Practice makes perfect, and he was a hunter, among other things.

2. Target rich environment. The Soviets tried to pretty much flood Finland with bodies.

3. Fighting defensively; the enemy came to you.

4. The Soviets didn't prepare for the WINTER war well, having just shot or imprisoned most of the professional generals and officers they had, and replaced them with political appointees. So, to answer your question about painting targets on themselves, the Soviets didn't outfit most of their troops with winter camo. So, dark gray human-silhouetted shapes on white background... They don't look like trees, either.

5. Familiar terrain. He was fighting on his turf, vs. the Soviet soldiers from anywhere in the USSR, many of them from the cities.

6. Generally poor training of the Soviet conscripts, making it possible for Simo to survive this many kills at a time.

7. Did I mention Simo was badass? Holding ice in your mouth so that the steam from your breath doesn't give you away, that's brilliant! That is, if you have hot food and shelter somewhere nearby. Like I said, home terrain advantage.

8. Since the front lines were relatively static, confirming kills was easier. In fact, I don't know how that worked in Finland. I know that Germans had quite a relaxed system, they wanted numbers in order to make national heroes. Normally, snipers have many more kills than they have confirmed kills. Finland also needed national heroes, you know. One should never underestimate the value of propaganda in a war.

9. In a winter forest it's pretty hard to tell where the sound comes from. That makes for better survivability. Then again, a forest makes for shorter distances.

10. Luck. Never discount that.

7x57
10-21-2009, 10:31 PM
1. Simo is the man. Practice makes perfect, and he was a hunter, among other things.


So, uh, when are you going to have your hunter's education cert? :D


4. The Soviets didn't prepare for the WINTER war well, having just shot or imprisoned most of the professional generals and officers they had, and replaced them with political appointees.


:kest: Now how could that possibly go wrong?


So, to answer your question about painting targets on themselves, the Soviets didn't outfit most of their troops with winter camo. So, dark gray human-silhouetted shapes on white background... They don't look like trees, either.


:banghead:

So that would be another order for 10,000 dark uniforms with concentric red circles on the chest then.


6. Generally poor training of the Soviet conscripts, making it possible for Simo to survive this many kills at a time.


I almost commented on the fact that at that rate he *had* to be taking too many chances. I suppose that's how you get your cheek and jaw blown off....


7. Did I mention Simo was badass?


I believe we all just kinda figured. :D


Holding ice in your mouth so that the steam from your breath doesn't give you away, that's brilliant!


So what is the equivalent strategy over there--a mouth full of sand and gravel? :43:


8. Since the front lines were relatively static, confirming kills was easier. In fact, I don't know how that worked in Finland.

At the rate he was going, after he finished off a unit he could just go collect the dog tags. :eek:

7x57

nick
10-21-2009, 10:43 PM
So, uh, when are you going to have your hunter's education cert? :D

I passed ASVAB and went through MEPS. The former found that I was retarded, the latter made sure I was. What more do you need? :p

So what is the equivalent strategy over there--a mouth full of sand and gravel? :43:

That'll hold your breath, alright.

At the rate he was going, after he finished off a unit he could just go collect the dog tags. :eek:

7x57

I don't think Soviets had dog tags. If I remember what I was taught correctly, they had some sort of military ID as their primary identification. At some point they also had some zinc alloy capsules for their papers. Now, try removing those from under 10 layers of clothing in winter...

7x57
10-21-2009, 11:01 PM
I passed ASVAB and went through MEPS. The former found that I was retarded, the latter made sure I was. What more do you need? :p


I'm good, but will CA accept those for issuing a hunting license?

7x57

nick
10-21-2009, 11:11 PM
I'm good, but will CA accept those for issuing a hunting license?

7x57

Depends on what you hunt.

7x57
10-21-2009, 11:14 PM
Depends on what you hunt.

Just remember, sniper boy, you have to eat what you shoot. :eek:

Thus begins the legend of "Liver Eatin' Nick." :D

7x57

nick
10-21-2009, 11:34 PM
Since when do people eat coyotes? :ack2:

And what's wrong with liver, anyway? Liver paste, fried liver, yummy :)

yellowfin
10-21-2009, 11:39 PM
Fried chicken liver is YUMMY! :thumbsup: :chef:

7x57
10-21-2009, 11:45 PM
Since when do people eat coyotes? :ack2:


Since some fellow Calgunners went off the rails (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=231574).


And what's wrong with liver, anyway? Liver paste, fried liver, yummy :)

Nothing, as long as you remember we're just civilian hunters here, not snipers. :D

Perhaps you missed the reference to Liver Eatin' Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver-Eating_Johnson).

7x57

7x57
10-21-2009, 11:51 PM
Naturally, it helps to use this:

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee96/OlrneryOlFart357/CoyoteHelper.jpg

7x57

Mulay El Raisuli
10-22-2009, 10:07 AM
And what's wrong with liver, anyway? Liver paste, fried liver, yummy :)


Just add some fava beans & Chianti and you're good to go.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
10-22-2009, 10:13 AM
I would say putting Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is an infringement. Want to bet on what side she takes on McDonald?


I wouldn't be at all surprised to see her vote Incorporation. It does a lot of good for The Left.

Also, there's nothing really outrageous in her Ruling in re Maloney. After all, deferring to Cruikshank isn't an unreasonable position to take. It IS the law of the land. Yes, its wrong, horribly racist & just plain wrong (so wrong it had to be said twice), but it is also the law of the land. The true test will be when she realizes that making precedent is part of her new job description. Then we'll know.

The Raisuli

yellowfin
10-22-2009, 10:54 AM
cruikshank violates all moral standards judges are obligated to have. A judge who stands by it isn't doing so because it's legally correct but because they lack the scruples and fortitude to do what is right. Law is worthless if it isn't about right and wrong.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-23-2009, 4:52 AM
cruikshank violates all moral standards judges are obligated to have. A judge who stands by it isn't doing so because it's legally correct but because they lack the scruples and fortitude to do what is right. Law is worthless if it isn't about right and wrong.


So important that it had to be said twice? :)

Anyway, I disagree. Judges are supposed to follow the law, NOT to impose their own beliefs. While I think Cruikshank a horribly racist Decision, I not only have no problem with a judge following it, I'd be distressed if a judge didn't. Think about a judge deciding that the 2A is just outdated, stupid, unworthy of modern thinking, etc. etc., etc. (IE; doing pretty much what some judges are doing now) & so Ruling contrary to the law in order to do what is "right" (as you put it). Aren't we all here pretty distressed by this disregard of the law? Why then should we think it OK for a judge to disregard the law when it suits us?

The Raisuli

hoffmang
10-23-2009, 7:17 AM
Anyway, I disagree. Judges are supposed to follow the law, NOT to impose their own beliefs. While I think Cruikshank a horribly racist Decision, I not only have no problem with a judge following it, I'd be distressed if a judge didn't.

First, I don't disagree with your point above that Sotomayor wasn't wildly off base by following Cruikshank. However, Cruikshank didn't do the Duncan v. Louisiana analysis that is now required by SCOTUS precedent. As such, Cruikshank is not and was not binding on the Second Circuit. Posner and Easterbrook made the same mistake in the 7th....

-Gene

bulgron
10-23-2009, 7:44 AM
First, I don't disagree with your point above that Sotomayor wasn't wildly off base by following Cruikshank. However, Cruikshank didn't do the Duncan v. Louisiana analysis that is now required by SCOTUS precedent. As such, Cruikshank is not and was not binding on the Second Circuit. Posner and Easterbrook made the same mistake in the 7th....

-Gene

Yes, they did the same thing that the courts usually do when it comes to gun rights: they bent over backwards to find a way to not support a right that they don't like. If those cases had been about anything else, they would have bent over backwards to arrive at the opposite conclusion. If memory serves, Kozinski mentioned this phenomena in his Silvera dissent.

All of which is why I hope and trust that we have a VERY solid game plan for advancing gun rights through the courts. Unless we twist their collective arm, they will never willingly support us.

hoffmang
10-23-2009, 6:33 PM
All of which is why I hope and trust that we have a VERY solid game plan for advancing gun rights through the courts. Unless we twist their collective arm, they will never willingly support us.

In fact it is often useful to play the courts for fools if they choose to use the minimalist or avoidance strategy. It takes circuit splits or rogue appeals courts to get Cert...

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
10-26-2009, 5:37 AM
First, I don't disagree with your point above that Sotomayor wasn't wildly off base by following Cruikshank. However, Cruikshank didn't do the Duncan v. Louisiana analysis that is now required by SCOTUS precedent. As such, Cruikshank is not and was not binding on the Second Circuit. Posner and Easterbrook made the same mistake in the 7th....

-Gene


I don't entirely disagree with this (and I presume that you meant that Maloney didn't do the Duncan v. Louisiana analysis..."), but I don't think its quite a slam dunk requirement either. There is a bit of 'wiggle room' in this. Not a lot, but some.

My point being that while Sotomayor is probably not our friend, this one case isn't quite enough to pin a label on her either. The comment in the 7th was that SCOTUS is where reversing SCOTUS precedents takes place. We won't know for sure about Sotomayor until she manifests realization of that.

I'll add that I have zero proof that she's going to become an avid fan of the Bill of Rights or anything. I'm just keeping in mind that being on the top has altered the mindsets of justices (and greatly surprised appointing presidents) before & we may well see that again.

Then again, we may see her break out a "La Raza" armband. Its all pretty much a crap shoot, isn't it? :)

The Raisuli