PDA

View Full Version : Ca. Conservative judge's 2A opinion


Kapenagary
12-20-2012, 4:01 PM
Thought provoking?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

Diablohtr
12-20-2012, 4:06 PM
Its a sad farce coming from a US Judge IMHO.

stix213
12-20-2012, 4:06 PM
He gets points for not calling them "clips" but that is it.

His idea of "sensible" gun control is bans and confiscation of guns by the millions. This guy claims to be pro-2A, but out the other side of his mouth thinks that the little old civilians should always be outgunned by the state.

russ69
12-20-2012, 4:07 PM
Even judges can be wrong, usually about half of them.

Dave A
12-20-2012, 4:12 PM
I couldn't even read completely through it. When I got to where this supposed intelligent Judge alleged that the Aurora shooter emptied his 100 round magazine I lost interest in this reasoned approach. The reason of course is the magazine did not function properly and jammed as they tend to do. I guess there is still a gag order in place on the information on just how many rounds he managed to expend, probably to give more opportunity for people like this one to misinform the average citizen.

Lets focus on the tool and not the sick person, because we have proved we are totally inept in dealing with mental illness, the recognition of it and the appropriate treatment.

211275
12-20-2012, 4:18 PM
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns. Why do the media and people like this continue to lie? :rolleyes: Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds. I say you dont ban any of the rifles, just limit them to 20 round magazines. Limit handguns to 10 round magazines. If you need more than that to take down an animal you are hunting or an intruder at your home, you have bigger issues, like target practice :)

IVC
12-20-2012, 4:21 PM
The article contains the standard "gun control assumption fallacy" that banning something is equivalent to not having it in the society from that point on.

In reality, the AW-s and hi-capacity magazines will still be available and possessed, just not legally and not the by legal gun owners. There will still be a Laughner with a 31 round magazine and a Holmes with a 100 round drum.

ScottB
12-20-2012, 4:24 PM
The article contains the standard "gun control assumption fallacy" that banning something is equivalent to not having it in the society from that point on.

In reality, the AW-s and hi-capacity magazines will still be available and possessed, just not legally and not the by legal gun owners. There will still be a Laughner with a 31 round magazine and a Holmes with a 100 round drum.

I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.

IVC
12-20-2012, 4:26 PM
Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds.

Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.

If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.

artoaster
12-20-2012, 4:26 PM
Emotion now, regret later. Government wins people lose. People's fault. Good people now can go to jail over magazines or how their rifles look.

IVC
12-20-2012, 4:28 PM
I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.

Confiscation doesn't ensure absence of objects from that point on.

Otherwise, we would just declare "confiscation of illegal drugs," everybody would turn them in, and the country would be clean the next day.

REH
12-20-2012, 4:37 PM
Every time this "do you need that" comes up, I have to ask do we rally want a government telling us what we need? First it's guns, then magazine capacity, then your car because it's a gas guzzler, then your food, because it has too much sugar or salt. Let’s talk about your house. Is it self efficient? If not you will need solar panels. You want that?

Harrison_Bergeron
12-20-2012, 4:39 PM
And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.

Is he touting a 2:1 ratio to prove his side's superior statistics? I cannot stand when people pull that nonsense. That a supposedly intelligent, and unbiased, person would try such a dirty tactic in such an important debate makes me very angry.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I already think the man's scruples should be questioned, this bit makes me question whether he is fit to practice law. What he proposes here would violate how many Constitutional Amendments?

SMR510
12-20-2012, 4:40 PM
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?

REH
12-20-2012, 4:45 PM
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?

I think some of the media inaccurately reported that.

Trenchfoot
12-20-2012, 4:47 PM
It appeared to be a shotgun in the trunk

stix213
12-20-2012, 4:54 PM
It appeared to be a shotgun in the trunk

Yeah latest info is shotgun was in the vehicle while the AR was used in the shooting, and a 10mm round from his glock ended his rambo revenge fantasy.

acace
12-20-2012, 4:54 PM
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns.

You are incorrect.

IVC
12-20-2012, 4:59 PM
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

And this is precisely why we fight any attempts at registration, direct or indirect such as forcing PPT through FFL-s and creating a paper trail...

LMTluvr
12-20-2012, 5:07 PM
From a conservative view?
He's about as conservative Kim Jong .
Any judge or politician who encourages confiscation of a guaranteed right should be imprisoned as they've obviously become a domestic enemy to the constitution.

211275
12-20-2012, 5:23 PM
Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.

If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.

Good point however I wouldnt be advocating it, I just wouldn't have a major issue with it. It would certainly be better to limit the mag cap then to start banning rifles.

IVC
12-20-2012, 5:37 PM
Good point however I wouldnt be advocating it, I just wouldn't have a major issue with it. It would certainly be better to limit the mag cap then to start banning rifles.

I hear ya. However, it's not an either/or proposition. It's step 1, step 2, step 3...

We cannot give up ground on issues that make no sense. To get to a meaningful discussion, we have to reject things that are weak and cannot hold up in court. It's up to the other side to start accepting that the legal landscape has changed since 1994 and that this time around it's not just about what they can push politically.

MigNoche
12-20-2012, 5:42 PM
Check out this website....

http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

We don't need more laws.

"* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"

"* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]"

Maestro Pistolero
12-20-2012, 5:47 PM
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns.No. the Bushmaster was the primary weapon. He killed himself with one of the handguns.

pistol3
12-20-2012, 5:48 PM
I am curious about the 4th amendment issues surrounding the government seizing legally purchased guns. Here we have a federal judge calling for certain types of guns to be made retroactively illegal and seized from the general population. In the new Yee bill, they are going to be calling for ARs with bullet buttons to be made illegal, and I'm sure if at all possible, seized from the general population. Could they get away with it? Obviously if the case came before this self-proclaimed pro-2A judge he would have everyone turning in their guns in a heartbeat.

MigNoche
12-20-2012, 5:49 PM
No. the Bushmaster was the primary weapon. He killed himself with one of the handguns.

The story has changed so many times. Is there a clear consensus yet on what actually happened?

Trenchfoot
12-20-2012, 5:55 PM
The story has changed so many times. Is there a clear consensus yet on what actually happened?

medical examiner's statement a couple of days ago said .223 was the primary.

Casey
12-20-2012, 5:59 PM
A judge that doesn't know the difference between a democracy and a Republic should not be sitting on a bench let alone writing anti gun op ed pieces.

Hogstir
12-20-2012, 6:10 PM
Yeah Bans always work so well. Prohibition was a great success I guess. All they are going to do is create a huge black market which the cartels and organized crime would exploit just like they did during prohibition. Don't think we have gun sniffing dogs so it would be fairly easy to smuggle into the US.

Cnynrat
12-20-2012, 6:14 PM
This idiot is not a conservative.

wizdumb
12-20-2012, 6:18 PM
Can this judge, or anyone else, guarantee that a riot will never again happen in any city I choose to live in this country? No? Then I'll be keeping my rifles and magazines.

Decoligny
12-20-2012, 6:23 PM
The "assault rifle" was in the trunk of the car in Sandy Hook was it not? He did the damage with two handguns. Why do the media and people like this continue to lie? :rolleyes: Having said that, I may be in the minority here but I dont think your average civilian needs to have 100 round drums or even 50 rounds. I say you dont ban any of the rifles, just limit them to 20 round magazines. Limit handguns to 10 round magazines. If you need more than that to take down an animal you are hunting or an intruder at your home, you have bigger issues, like target practice :)

You have obviously never been a Korean shop owner during the Rodney King riots. They were not trying to drive off a home intruder, they were trying to drive off hundreds of people who wanted to steal everything they had, burn down their property and leave their lifeless bodies laying in the street. A few 50 or 100 round magazines would look mighty good to you if you were ever in a similar situation.

ScottB
12-20-2012, 6:26 PM
How are they going to confiscate something that they arent supposed to be tracking? There is no long gun registration, there is no mag registration...

Good luck confiscating a few million guns...

What did happen to the AR-15 being in his car? The medical examiner said that it was the weapon used but isnt that just BS to stoke the fire?

If confiscation was ordered (and survived legal challenges, which I doubt it would), they would first offer compensation and that would get a lot of them. After that, every FFL has records that could be checked. RAWs, NFA weapons and handguns are registered in CA and at least several other states. Mags admittedly would be more difficult, but if they get the gun who needs the mag?

When was the last time you saw a detachable mag SKS?

mt4design
12-20-2012, 9:17 PM
You have obviously never been a Korean shop owner during the Rodney King riots. They were not trying to drive off a home intruder, they were trying to drive off hundreds of people who wanted to steal everything they had, burn down their property and leave their lifeless bodies laying in the street. A few 50 or 100 round magazines would look mighty good to you if you were ever in a similar situation.

Yep.

People do not realize that many Korean shop owners were living in the backs of their stores. Those stores were their homes. Google, "Korean shop keeper killed".

This judge actually scares me. I'm glad he's not on the Supreme Court and hope he retires sooner rather than later.

Mike

SanPedroShooter
12-20-2012, 9:23 PM
There is a poll in there and we are down

60 odd/30odd

USMCM16A2
12-20-2012, 9:35 PM
Folks,



The fact is even in the most retched scenarios we as gun owners can imagine, confiscation would be a disaster. This Judge obvious has a rectal cranial inversion, the blood bath that would ensue would be on a scale never seen in the US. Insurrection would be an understatement.
Though most people would give up their weapons, there would be enough folks with nothing to lose. I went to a couple of gun stores to pick up a few things today and the talk is scarey. People are scared in a way I have never seen before in almost 30 years of gun ownership. A2

Green Ice Dragon
12-20-2012, 9:52 PM
Once again, from my favorite reporter, a reality check!

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

For those that can't watch: The 2nd Amendment was for us to match the government in our ability to fight them by force, if it came to that. Not what type of weapon, not to hunt, not even to defend ourselves from a common thug. The latter are just bonuses that happen to come with the 2nd Amendment.

nicki
12-21-2012, 2:22 AM
I guess this judge doesn't get it that the second amendment is a our final check on an out of control government and that having the second amendment means that there will be abuses just like there is with other rights.

Nicki

safewaysecurity
12-21-2012, 2:25 AM
Don't know why people would assume these so-called "conservative" people would be pro-gun. The saying goes " The left hates guns and the right hates rights." Generally Liberals should in theory be pro-gun but we all know Liberals these days aren't so Liberal.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-21-2012, 6:41 AM
Thought provoking?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story


Frightening.:eek: For all the reasons stated.

In spite of that, I'll chip in my 2 cents.


You have obviously never been a Korean shop owner during the Rodney King riots. They were not trying to drive off a home intruder, they were trying to drive off hundreds of people who wanted to steal everything they had, burn down their property and leave their lifeless bodies laying in the street. A few 50 or 100 round magazines would look mighty good to you if you were ever in a similar situation.


Yes, they would have.


Can this judge, or anyone else, guarantee that a riot will never again happen in any city I choose to live in this country? No? Then I'll be keeping my rifles and magazines.


Which is why they look good now. And of course, there's the original reason for the 2A (defense against foreign attack or govt oppression), which is always a worry.


Completely agree that nobody needs any of that. However, you are advocating for banning it, so it's up to you to formulate what you plan to achieve by such a ban and how we are going to measure the effectiveness.


For the above reasons, I completely disagree on the "need" for standard & large capacity mags. The "need" isn't often, but the "need" is indeed there.

In addition, riots aren't the only problem. Gangs are just about everywhere. If you define a gang as "a bunch of thugs acting in concert" (like I do) then the possibility of having to face multiple attackers can occur just about anywhere, even in the Heartland. Also, I don't know what the next al-Qaeda Moment will look like, but there's a distinct possibility that it will also involve good people facing multiple attackers. No, it cannot be said that no one has a "need" for large capacity mags.


If it turns out that your ban was ineffective, then we have to repeal it since a capricious ban is an infringement. Now, we have all the data we need from the 1994-2004 ban and it was ineffective. QED.


Quite so. We already know that a ban will be ineffective because we already HAD one. It didn't lower the crime rate at all, & the crime rate didn't go up when it was repealed.


I am curious about the 4th amendment issues surrounding the government seizing legally purchased guns. Here we have a federal judge calling for certain types of guns to be made retroactively illegal and seized from the general population. In the new Yee bill, they are going to be calling for ARs with bullet buttons to be made illegal, and I'm sure if at all possible, seized from the general population. Could they get away with it? Obviously if the case came before this self-proclaimed pro-2A judge he would have everyone turning in their guns in a heartbeat.


The 2A issues would likely stop such an effort in its tracks. So, limiting this to JUST 4A issues: It could be done. Confiscation can be done, but ONLY if the govt pays for what is confiscated. You'll note that not even DiFi wants to grab existing weapons or magazines. She is fully aware that doing so would cost HUGE amounts of money. Which the govt does not have at present. If the 2A issues don't stop people like our so-called "Conservative" judge, maybe the money aspect will.


There were several links to related stories. Most were 'more of the same' as what the OP linked to. But the one titled "Let gun-lovers lead the charge on gun control " was interesting.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-newtown-liberals-20121218,0,4287461.story


The author acknowledges that there really is a disconnect between people like him & people like us. That there really is "a great deal of truth" to the claim that Obama & people like him would be OK if all guns were grabbed.

What he'd like (and, distressingly, what we all now see) is for gunnies (or, at least, so-called gunnies) to lead the charge against ARs & AKs. People like Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), who is blind to the reality that these guns really do have utility.

Since Mr. McGough has had his wish granted, & since he's likely to see even more of this, I think that THIS is an area we have to concentrate on.

If the choice is made to do more than preach to the choir (like, maybe in the social media?), suggested arguments: Point out that if the proposed ban won't grab exiting guns/mags (and it won't), it won't do diddly squat. And since it won't do diddly squat, why bother?

As for how often we have the "need" for large capacity mags; Every country in Europe requires that all cars have a fire extinguisher. Clearly, car fires don't happen to everyone. They don't happen every day. Or even very often. But they DO happen, & the proper response is for everyone to have the means to respond THEMSELVES.

The same logic applies to large capacity mags. Riots, al-Qaeda Moments & attacks by gangs don't happen every day. They don't happen to everyone. But, they DO happen, & until it can be guaranteed that they'll never happen again, everyone should have the means to respond. This is what I'm using on Facebook. Maybe others here can do the same?


The Raisuli

stix213
12-21-2012, 7:02 AM
This idiot is not a conservative.

Yeah he sounds to me like a big government statist.

Mitch
12-21-2012, 7:24 AM
I think you missed the part where he calls for confiscation of all of those things.

And then they will be as rare as heroin or cocaine, which are illegal in every country in the world!

Oh wait, maybe those were bad examples . . .

jdmcgee
12-21-2012, 7:33 AM
The best thing all of us, & I mean all of us, can do that disagree with an editorial news story like this is to personally contact the LA Times to let them know what true pro-2A people think. I know that far too many of the members of this forum think that the media won't listen to our side but remember, if we never attempt to make our voices heard than no one will ever hear them. A defeatist attitude ensures nothing but defeat.

Also remember that the more voices that are heard, the more impossible those voices are to ignore. We can never only depend on a group, even CalGuns or the NRA, to speak for us.

It is your responsibility as a supporter of all Constitutional rights to speak your individual voice & make it heard.

I for one will be emailing & calling the LA Times later today about this... Who's with me?

JDMcGee

jdmcgee
12-21-2012, 7:44 AM
I say you dont ban any of the rifles, just limit them to 20 round magazines. Limit handguns to 10 round magazines. If you need more than that to take down an animal you are hunting or an intruder at your home, you have bigger issues, like target practice :)

True, but we all need to remember that the 2A wasn't only written for hunting or even personal self-defense. The 2A was written as a last defense against a tyrannical & oppressive government. If we publicly play into your argument about hunting & self defense we are limiting ourselves to a future law permitting only shotguns, bolt-action rifles & possibly handguns since these are the most common firearms for your stated purposes.

JDMcGee

Hoooper
12-21-2012, 10:13 AM
"To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems."

wha?? Somebody has failed to recognize that mass murders have happened and will continue to happen without using guns

Calzona
12-21-2012, 10:44 AM
I prefer this article, a liberal arguing against the AWB.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/0...cond-Amendment

Neo Sharkey
12-21-2012, 10:46 AM
No. the Bushmaster was the primary weapon. He killed himself with one of the handguns.

I don't believe them...funny how the story was that he first used pistols, with the shotgun and AR in the trunk.

I get the impression they changed the story to back their holy grail, the "assault weapon" ban.

Have they released any surveillance footage stills of him with the Bushmaster? We know this administration will not let any crisis pass without using it to their benefit...does anyone doubt that they'd push to misreport the facts until after they pass a ban?

GutPunch
12-21-2012, 10:49 AM
Good point however I wouldnt be advocating it, I just wouldn't have a major issue with it. It would certainly be better to limit the mag cap then to start banning rifles.

I would. Not another damn inch.

Harrison_Bergeron
12-21-2012, 11:13 AM
The brother that was originally implicated was probably the real shooter too, they just dumped Adam into the fray so that they could show how easy it is for those with mental issues to get guns under current laws.

[/sarcasm]

I don't believe them...funny how the story was that he first used pistols, with the shotgun and AR in the trunk.

I get the impression they changed the story to back their holy grail, the "assault weapon" ban.

Have they released any surveillance footage stills of him with the Bushmaster? We know this administration will not let any crisis pass without using it to their benefit...does anyone doubt that they'd push to misreport the facts until after they pass a ban?

Mulay El Raisuli
12-21-2012, 3:19 PM
I prefer this article, a liberal arguing against the AWB.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/0...cond-Amendment


Link doesn't work.


The Raisuli

JSolie
12-21-2012, 4:41 PM
No. the Bushmaster was the primary weapon. He killed himself with one of the handguns.

The story has changed so many times. Is there a clear consensus yet on what actually happened?

medical examiner's statement a couple of days ago said .223 was the primary.

Anyone got a link?