Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Zorro, Sep 9, 2023.
this ignores two key points
1) that incorporation was slow with the second amendment (2010-McDonald v Chicago) and
2) those are all municipal ordinances not state or federal laws
I also deny that public safety was the motivation for those laws-many of them were based on purely racist or discriminatory (anti "papist" in many cases) reasons. The Tombstone nonsense was basically the dominant crime family (the Earps) not wanting the competition to be armed
I asked for late 18th century, as that is the relevant standard as laid out in Bruen.
No one expected you to meaningfully meet the challenge, and you proved us right.
Up your game.
I've posted the salient ones in #175
See #175 for a more robust list.
Was not Heller about Washington DC, a 'district', or in my view, a 'city' (for all intents and purposes)?
I wasn't arguing for states, I was arguing for the right of cities to ban gun carry within city limits, like many townships did in the 19th century, and beyond, like the recent NM gov did. . I was NOT arguing for an all out gun ban.
Heller was federal not state law-one of the main points chicago unsuccessfully raised in McDonald. The municipal restrictions tended to appear after the end of slavery and the due process amendments and were mainly motivated by sinister reasons.
It does not matter how many times you demonstrate his claims to be false and/or his arguments or unsound - the are but flesh wounds.
Typical of those who fish from a slow-moving boat.
Back on ignore.
Cool. Chat bot knows some of the facts I know. Too bad it’s not intelligent enough to correct your error.
Chat bots can’t think for you. Think this through. What is different about Tombstone in 1881 and Albuquerque in 2023? If you give up ask chat bot. It may be able to figure it out.
No Democrat justice ever argued against any right bestowed in the BoR.
On the second, they disagree as to what the 'right' is.
If the second amendment bestows a collective right, which was the legal convention for over 2 centuries prior to Heller, then there is no individual right to vote against. Heller was decided on, based on a faulty interpretation of history, on a party line vote, and, in historical terms, a rather recent ruling, so it hardly is a strong precedent.
Your logic wanes.
The difference was neither Heller nor Mcdonald was not ruled on in 1881. The second amendment wasn't incorporated to states or US territories.
But that isn't the point, the point is that America, and her territories, saw fit, at municipal levels, to ban gun carry within city limits.
The point is that history in America (and her territories) is replete with gun carry bans within city limits, on public safety grounds.
My argument is that Heller is wrong, based on a faulty interpretation of history, it was voted on a party line vote, and historically speaking, rather recent, so I don't see it as strong precedent.
If Heller is wrong, then so is McDonald and Bruen, wrong.
They are current rulings, and we must bide by them, but I view them as wrong, and give my reasons.
And, fyi, I take ownership of any position I make in print, no matter the source, and link to the source, often.
Take ownership? You are claiming you had that knowledge before querying a chat bot? That doesn’t make any sense. We know you are going to believe anything a chat bot tells you. But you can’t “take ownership” of it.
So you have an opinion. You think the SC is wrong. Cool. I thought maybe you were attempting to make an argument. But you were just posting irrelevant filler.
Basically your argument is that some places saw fit to enslave others in the past so the 13 th amendment is “wrong”. Clever argument.
You don’t think the 2A applied to states in 1881? That’s wild. Did the 13 th A apply to states in 1881?
Soon he will post something about people not liking guns in some village in Siberia in 1880 as evidence the New Mexico Govenator is within her rights.
It seemed to me like an attempt to ski from a slow moving boat.
Again: I routed you to a case. If you had any idea how 2nd amendment jurisprudence works, you'd already have read the case and know what I'm talking about. When routed, a normal person would quickly read the case to know what they were routed to.
People often simply reference the case in a casual conversation, which is what this is. I'm not writing you a ****ing brief dude.
Part of your legal argument refers to the declaration of independence as if it grants rights. This is indicative of someone who has no idea how it works, because learning that is really 101 style information.
I offered that you should freely google it for yourself if you didn't believe me. Have you?
Further: No, I'm a licensed and practising attorney in the state of Texas and in the southern district.
Jamaican Patois? Interesting: Mi did mek di argument mi routed yuh tuh di case sah. Duh read di case an learn wah it says suh yuh cya ave a inform opinion.
Holy **** no ****ing way. You got sauce for that? I'm going to go dog walk that incompetent ****
Sorry buddy, but the laws you cite are just infringements that were not challenged.
That doesn't make them constitutional.
You'd know that if you'd read the Bruen case as I directed you to. This entire argument is addressed there, so you'd know its already been outright rejected by the courts.
Well that didn't last long the courts have already told not no but hell no having issued her a restraining order.
You're talking in generalities.
Cite the precise line or lines in my comment that you disagree with, and make your argument what is wrong with it, and supplement your argument with links, if such are available, but I'm not going to play guessing games.
Yes, you mentioned Bruen, but you are not specific. Be specific.
I've already told you I do not claim to be an expert, and have peppered many of my arguments with 'IANAL' (your mileage may vary, etc.) so you can dispense with the condescension, you haven't earned that right unless you can prove who you are, which, if you did, you would be a fool, so I know you won't.
Until you prove you are a lawyer, you are just like the rest of us, all of whom no one is an authority. People say **** all the time when they are anonymous.
I don't subscribe to the argument that, we, in modernity, must subscribe to the notion that what was appropriate for frontiersman in the late 18th century should be the basis on our rulings in modernity. I wouldn't reject it altogether, but, I don't think we should be bound by it.
I say Heller, and the rulings that emerged from it, such as McDonald, and Bruen are wrong.
Historically speaking, many municipalities in the mid to late 19th century banned gun carry within city limits. I'm not saying a state or federal law should ban gun carry, but cities and towns should be able to, if they saw fit for public safety. That fact remains that some towns and some cities are far more dangerous than others, and they should have that right, which they did, before Heller.
In fact, the second amendment should be repealed, period, and that would put an end to all this insanity of Bruen, etc.
Repealing the second amendment, which, for two centuries, the convention was that the 'right' had a militia context. Though that isn't realistic, I understandm vbut repealing Heller is very doable, with a more liberal court, a court which would be truer to the demographics of the electorate.
Gazillions of laws are unchallenged, but they are laws, nevertheless,
In fact, none of those municipal laws regulating gun carry infringed on the second amendment until Heller (actually McDonald), well over a century later.
The claim I made was that America has a history of gun carry regulation in scores of townships.
That's all I said, and that claim is true.
You claim 'constitutional' well what is, and what isn't 'constitutional' varies according to the predominant judicial philosophy of the supreme court.
Conservatives have a 6/3 majority now, but that won't last forever at which point we shall see what is 'constitutional' and what isn't.
Justice Breyer's dissent in Bruen criticized the Court's historical-tradition methodology as dismissive of modern legislative objectives and unworkable in practice. Breyer began by highlighting the disproportionately high number of guns possessed by U.S. civilians compared to civilians in other countries and cited statistical evidence of the dangers posed by firearms, including recent mass shootings. He argued that states need flexibility to tailor regulations to their specific demographic environments, which may dictate different regulatory choices for urban and rural areas.
Breyer contended that the question of firearm regulation should be solved by legislators rather than courts and that the Court's opinion will leave states without the ability to account for these issues in formulating gun policy. The dissent then reviewed the facts of the case, emphasizing that New York's permitting system provided extensive guidance on how licensing officials should apply the "proper cause" standard. Breyer lamented the lack of an evidentiary record demonstrating how the standard has actually been applied in practice.
He criticized the Court for drawing a neat line between "may issue" and "shall issue" permitting schemes without considering the degree of variation within and across those categories and without evaluating how permitting regimes function in practice. Breyer also noted the unique demographic challenges faced by the seven "outlier" may-issue states in their gun violence prevention strategies. He pointed out that shall-issue licensing is a relatively new development and that, historically, most states employed may-issue regimes. Additionally, he cited empirical studies showing that shall-issue frameworks lead to more gun violence.
Breyer then levied three major methodological criticisms at the Court's historical-tradition test.
First, he argued that the test is not faithful to Heller because Heller contemplated some form of means-ends scrutiny and only rejected a more freestanding "interest-balancing" approach.
Second, he observed that the test is not consistent with how courts evaluate other constitutional rights, as they commonly consult history to determine the scope of the right and then apply means-ends scrutiny to determine the constitutionality of the law at issue.
Third, he argued that the historical-tradition test will prove deeply impractical, questioning whether lower courts have the resources to conduct the necessary historical analysis, whether the test might allow judges to reach preferred outcomes and then cloak them in the language of history, and whether history can provide concrete answers to difficult questions that were not anticipated at the time of the Founding.
In a final section, the dissent conducted its own review of the relevant historical regulations. Breyer found a centuries-old tradition of comparable firearms regulations analogous to New York's "proper cause" requirement. He questioned how this historical tradition could be insufficient to support the New York law and what might possibly be sufficient under the Court's test if such a long tradition of similar regulations fell short.
The dissent argued that the Court's test precludes state legislatures from making empirical judgments about the best way to address gun violence and overlooks historical support sufficient to uphold the New York law.
The dissent emphasized the level of generality at which a judge conducts the historical-analogue inquiry, noting that a higher level of generality will yield representative historical regulations. It also highlighted the importance of subtle nuances within shall-issue regimes and the need for evidentiary records showing how licensing officials actually grant concealed-carry permits in practice.
Breyer further questioned the Court's fidelity to originalism or textualism, noting that the Court's test does emphasize legislative means and ends, albeit only through a historical lens. He raised concerns about determining the intent and perspective of historical legislators, the reliability of surviving historical records, and the possibility of inaccurate accounts shaping the historical understanding of laws.
In conclusion, Justice Breyer's dissent identified obstacles that the historical-tradition test will face in practice and argued that the Court's opinion undermines the ability of states to address gun violence through tailored regulations.
The long and short of it is that I find Justice Breyer's argument far more compelling than the opinion given by Justice Thomas.
yes,. Heller, Bruen, McDonald, etc., are the current status quo of the court, As such, we must abide by the rulings. But I feel they are wrong.
"Progressives" by nature are authoritarians, and you can trace the history of their self-righteousness and zealotry back to their Jacobin ancestors in revolutionary France, but what we're seeing in New Mexico is the problem you see with many Leftists (including more than a few here), which is their mistaken tendency to treat rights as if they were privileges that they have the power to grant and take away from people. This is why they don't believe in the inherent and inalienable individual rights that they don't have the power to grant and take away from people.
Here's a great article written by the libertarians at the Mises Institute that nails this problem on the head:
Told to stop?
No. She should be thrown in jail where she can face the consequences of violating the fundamental rights of American citizens and contemplate the error of her ways.
So now you are saying left leaning judges are the only ones who correctly interpret the Constitution?
Yes. According to her, it's perfectly acceptable to jail her without bail or charges, as long as it's in 30 day increments.
What a tremendous opportunity for upward mobility would be provided if we opened Federal Land up to Homestead.
'We can see, then, that the right not to be harmed and the right to own property do not conflict—they are variations of the same fundamental right. This is especially evident when the property in question equips us to better protect ourselves and our other property. That’s the case with firearms. The debate Grisham calls for is built on a lie.'
Authoritarians are always liars.
'The governor is trying to account for the government’s failures to protect people, a service it monopolizes, by violating the property rights of Bernalillo County citizens. She understands this is probably illegal and at the press conference even called herself courageous for moving ahead anyway. Even though, unlike the rest of us outside of government, she wouldn’t face consequences if it were determined that what she’s doing is illegal. She’d, at most, be told to stop...'
Well, she facing a LOT of lawsuits and the AG has already told her that she's on her own, the State is not going to defend her in cases caused by her illegal and unconstitutional actions. She may end up teaching at Harvard, that seems to be the landing sport for failed office holders.
that claim is blatantly false-even the lapdog court of FDR didn't hold that.
and there was no prior case in the US Supreme court that supports your faulty claim
His dissent ignores the fact there was no congressional power given to regulate arms. He also pretended that a rational basis test should apply to the second but it has a been rejected when applied to other fundamental rights
this is a fairly even analysis
Separate names with a comma.