|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#401
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sigh. Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm. These issues, therefore, are not established for any practical purpose. Some people, who actually believe in broad interpretations of civil liberties, want the Court to more clearly enunciate what rights the 2A protects so that the People can begin enjoying those rights with reduced fear of prosecution. And now I've committed the cardinal sin of knowingly feeding the troll. May God forgive me.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#403
|
|||
|
|||
God may forgive you, but we will not!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#404
|
||||
|
||||
Oh for the love of crackers, are you serious? I think you are trolling, but how does affirming that 2A applies to arms not conceived at the time of ratification somehow equal minutiae? It was unanimous per curiam by the way.
|
#405
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#406
|
|||
|
|||
In the exactly the same way as affirming the right to travel with one's firearm. A narrow issue of a specific law. Or you are unable to read complete sentences?
|
#407
|
||||
|
||||
If you think both of those are "narrow" issues, no wonder you appear so confused in many of these threads. Expanding 2A and rights in general is the exact OPPOSITE of narrowness.
|
#408
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#410
|
||||
|
||||
Spot on
|
#411
|
||||
|
||||
New York City and NYSRPA have asked the Court to set a briefing schedule that has NYSRPA file its brief on May 7 and NYC file its brief on August 5.
This briefing schedule would allow the Court to hear oral arguments during the October session.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
I was right, you are unable to read complete sentences.
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#414
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Remember 1) The Supreme Court is not reading this thread, so the importance is quite small, and 2) Nobody ever 'wins' an internet argument, so emotional investment here is not warranted.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 02-25-2019 at 4:19 PM.. |
#415
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#417
|
|||
|
|||
mrrabbit's only idea is "see Heller". But he can't find any cases of an appeals court that has thrown out a conviction for OC without a permit, or has made an injunction against enforcing such laws. Laws against OC are enforced. If mrrabbit doesn't believe these laws are enforceable, he should start OCing now. But he doesn't do that, because he knows he will be arrested and convicted.
And that's what it means to say, "OC isn't a protected right". You can and will be arrested and convicted for OCing without a permit in California. How is something a protected right, if doing it will inevitably lead to arrest and conviction? Mrrabbit can't explain that, except by saying that the courts are corrupt. And I pointed out, this is a lot like the arguments that tax protesters use. "The income tax is illegal!" they say. Great, so stop filing your returns and then win in court. "No, that won't work because the courts are corrupt", they say. Ok... well, in fantasy-world, you can OC without a permit and not file your income taxes. That's cool. But back in the real world, I don't want to get arrested and convicted. Mrrabbit is on my ignore list and I wish Calguns would put him a ban list. Again, if he's so sure that OC is a protected right, he should start doing it, today.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#418
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#419
|
|||
|
|||
mrrabbit may be inconsequential in some respects. Most of us know not to take the OC thing too seriously so it isn't a problem for us.
The difficulty is that he might convince someone who doesn't understand that law enforcement and the courts will not be at all happy if you open carry in this state except under very specific circumstances. This means that people have to argue with him continually and ad nauseum so that somebody doesn't take him seriously and go out there and get arrested, get convicted, and have the state revoke their right to possess a firearm at all. Being well-meaning does not mean you are harmless.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#420
|
||||
|
||||
Given Señor Conejo's inability to support any of his false statements, I am not convinced that he is well-meaning. His command of written English suggests he's not special needs, which is about the only innocent explanation (at least as far as I can hypothesize) for his behavior.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#421
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I keep remembering back to the UOC bunch and their pronouncements. Many/most were wonderful people who were convinced that they were both righteous and unassailable. No matter that a whole bunch of us tried to point out what would really happen if they persisted they insisted their version of reality would prevail. There were a few whom folk found convincing even though they were clearly behaving badly. That untoward behavior and poor outcomes still haven't convinced all that they should really not trust what some characters say and the courses they pursue. Anyway, I'm going to assume mrrabbit means well and just hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality. This is unfortunate and could be disastrous for some if they take him too seriously.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#422
|
||||
|
||||
The pronouncements about open carry and the Heller decision can be used in at least 2 ways:
While some seem to be concentrating on the former recently, I believe it's the latter that is the primary reason it's brought up. Quite obviously, one is likely to run afoul of the law if one were to openly carry in areas where laws forbidding it are operative. But that's true of every law, just or unjust, Constitutional or not. Law enforcement agencies have proven their willingness to enforce unjust or (what would later be determined by the courts) Unconstitutional laws, so a pronouncement that the 2nd Amendment protects open carry is really a pronouncement that it is supposed to protect it. But Constitutional protections don't mean a damn thing if they're not actually heeded by the various government agencies. And so we get to the latter application of the pronouncements: prediction of court outcomes. The argument with respect to tax protesters falls flat here, particularly with respect to claims of a corrupt court system. We know that the court system is corrupt. We've seen, time and time again, the 9th Circuit go out of its way to bury the right to arms in the ground, both in contravention of the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment (and of what it means for something to be a right in the first place) and in contravention of the logical consequence of Heller (that decision wouldn't have bothered talking about "sensitive places" if there weren't an operative right to bear arms outside the home). The pronouncement with respect to open carry is a prediction of how the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue of carry. The problem with mrrabbit's claims is that they have logical consequences that contradict his very claims. I intend to go over all that in the thread I've started here: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...php?p=22712077
__________________
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. |
#423
|
||||
|
||||
No big deal, just explain at trial that they haven't established "Joinder" between you and your legal person. That'll set 'em straight.
|
#425
|
|||
|
|||
Since this case is about a statute barring the transport of firearms out of the city and not the city's permitting requirements, and since NYC is the acme of anti-gun fervor, the odds are exactly "not a chance in Hell."
|
#426
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.” ― Plato |
#429
|
|||
|
|||
Wow. They knew they would lose and then pull this crap.
What are possible outcomes of this? Can the SC just ignore because they know the shenanigans they are trying to pull? Even if NY holds this bullsh#t meeting and adopts the new rules can the SC still rule on the case for national implications? So many questions!!! |
#430
|
||||
|
||||
Missing a few other locations in the “new” NY rule — like to a friend’s house, gunsmith, gun store...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
I note this bullsh*t, er, somewhat contradictory statement: "The Police Department has strongly believed, and continues to maintain, that the present Rule furthers an important public-safety interest." So the Police Department believes that the rule fulfills an important public safety interest, but they're going to repeal/override it anyway. What kind of bull**** is that? "Well, the public doesn't need to be THAT safe, I guess. That was just an extra super-safety layer of infringement. If only a couple hundred more people a year are subject to gun violence, that's no big deal. Go ahead, take your gun out of the city. Or something."
Edit: to add emphasis Last edited by surfgeorge; 04-12-2019 at 3:20 PM.. |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
Monday morning, I believe.
|
#438
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Sir, your account is 90 days past due, when can we expect to receive a payment?" "You can expect to receive a payment whenever you'd like."
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
Let's hope they take Mance instead. Federal statutes are far less likely to get reversed on a whim.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|