View Single Post
Old 07-24-2017, 9:59 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,633
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
All the above is a lotta text....

...and wasted.

Because I have made NO POSITIONAL CLAIM about Thomas!
That's correct, you didn't. I brought up Thomas' dissent as strong evidence that the "open carry is the only protected form of carry" position is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Heller (such an interpretation prior to his dissent at least had some plausibility, but that plausibility is gone in the presence of Thomas' dissent).

Since you have no positional claim about Thomas, it therefore follows that you cannot be disagreeing with me on that point, since to disagree with a position that is derived from Thomas' dissent automatically means that you must have a position on Thomas' dissent, as said position must at least include the degree to which Thomas' dissent matters, which in turn requires a position on Thomas' dissent.

Furthermore, I have made no positional claims about SCOTUS in Heller.
Oh, yes you have. That's because you said the following:

Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
- Bans on OC do not pass constitutional muster.
You said that. Not SCOTUS in Heller. Nowhere in Heller does SCOTUS say any such thing. You interpret the Heller decision as meaning the above, but there is no sentence anywhere in Heller where SCOTUS said anything like the above. The Nunn court said that. The Reid court said that. SCOTUS didn't say that, because quoting something is not the same thing as saying it.

But if you truly do not have a position on what SCOTUS said in Heller, then you cannot possibly disagree with any particular interpretation of Heller, since that most certainly requires taking a position on what Heller means, something that you claim you are not doing.

And, hence I'm back to reminding you that perhaps YOU are reading too much into his dissent.
Maybe I am, but at the very least, what I read from his dissent is completely logically consistent with the context of what Heller actually says (the decision itself, not that which it quotes) as well as with what Thomas said about the 9th Circuit and with what he didn't say about it (in particular, that he didn't give any indication whatsoever that he agrees with the 9th Circuit about its position on concealed carry).

When I read Thomas's dissent in the denial of Cert for Peruta, I come to one conclusion:

He's calling out CA9 for the chicken**** political hacks that they are in a polite and respectful manner - demonstrating the class act that he is in the process!
Yep. Completely agree. But that's not all that Thomas was doing, because his intended audience extends beyond the 9th Circuit.


He makes crystal clear the following:

1. The history of the case clearly shows a request for some kind of remedy.

2. That CA9 was heading into the same discussion that SCOTUS already held in Heller v. DC. (cited Heller v. DC particulars on bear (carry)).

3. That CA9 would have had to respect Heller v. DC on bear (carry).

4. That CA9 instead grabbed ONE particular only from Heller v. DC - "Prohibiton on Concealed Carry may be upheld. . ." and ran with that - conveniently allowing them to evade Peruta's request for some kind of remedy.

So there's my claim. Thomas isn't pointing out a need for a discussion on carry - SCOTUS already had that discussion - he repeated it in his dissent.
Yes, I agree with all of the above. He repeated exactly what Heller both says and implies: that some form of carry must be available to the citizenry. What form? He doesn't say, because SCOTUS didn't say in Heller, either.

He's calling CA9 a bunch of chicken**** political hacks for refusing to have the same discussion that SCOTUS had in Heller v. DC knowing full welll they would arrive at roughly the same particulars and conclusions.
What particulars would they arrive at that would yield some form of remedy? Would they strike the open carry ban? Or would they grant the relief requested by the plaintiffs (a declaration that "self defense" is sufficient "good cause" for a concealed carry license)? Or something else? Note that in order to answer that question, you have to take a position on what Heller says.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-25-2017 at 7:18 AM..
Reply With Quote