Sutherland shooting

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:40 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:X

how can you argue that there always was a universal right to own guns in the US if there wasn't one applicable to all states until 2010?
Almost all Constitutional rights were Incorporated in the 30s and 40s but notably NOT the 2nd one.
This shows that in the minds of legal scholars and judges it simply doesn't have the same standing as the rest of the Constitution.
That is until activist Scalia decided otherwise against all precedent.

The best SCOTUS money could buy.


I never suspected Gawdzilla was a conspiracy theorist. I'm surprised he would so readily admit that.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:57 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:X

how can you argue that there always was a universal right to own guns in the US if there wasn't one applicable to all states until 2010?
Almost all Constitutional rights were Incorporated in the 30s and 40s but notably NOT the 2nd one.
This shows that in the minds of legal scholars and judges it simply doesn't have the same standing as the rest of the Constitution.


No, it only shows that the question was never put to the Supreme Court until 2010. There is much legal scholarship prior to 2010 that the 2nd Amendment did indeed have the same standing as the others.

The Bill of Rights was "incorporated" to the states with the 14th Amendment. This was confirmed by subsequent Supreme Court rulings. It is not the case that the 14th did not apply to the states prior to those court rulings. The "incorporation" was created at the time of the 14th Amendment, not later at the time of the court rulings. The court ruling merely confirmed what the 14th Amendment said. The court rulings did not create "new law", as you seem to be implying. The law that says the Bill of Rights apply to the states was created in 1868.


ElectricMonk wrote:That is until activist Scalia decided otherwise against all precedent.


It seems you are merely repeating the spin doctoring by Andrew Torrez in that podcast you cited.

Scalia (and the rest of them) had a huge amount of precedent for their decision, and this is well documented.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12289
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby JO 753 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:00 am

I assume your point iz that you think a goverment iz misbehaving by 'taking away' any uv the rites uv it's sitizenz.

At wut point do you think other nationz shoud intervene? (for example, lets say Hitler only wiped out Jewz in Germany, but didnt try to take over the world)
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:18 am

JO 753 wrote:I assume your point iz that you think a goverment iz misbehaving by 'taking away' any uv the rites uv it's sitizenz.


Yes, that is exactly my position.

It is also the position of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And that is also the position of the founders of the United States. In fact that is why the US was founded in the first place, they objected to (some of) their rights being taken away by the King.

The Declaration of Independence wrote:. . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People  to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


It's not like I pulled this idea out of my ass. ;)


JO 753 wrote:At wut point do you think other nationz shoud intervene? (for example, lets say Hitler only wiped out Jewz in Germany, but didnt try to take over the world)


That is a separate issue. I have mixed feelings about that. I have considered arguments on both sides of the issue and I have not yet resolved it in my own mind.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12289
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby JO 753 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:11 am

...as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


The 2nd amendment iz that flailing rod I wuz tokking about. Smaks rite into this and at least 1 other orijinal provision uv The Constitution.

JO 753 wrote:At wut point do you think other nationz shoud intervene?


xouper wrote:That is a separate issue. I have mixed feelings about that. I have considered arguments on both sides of the issue and I have not yet resolved it in my own mind.


The way it usually works iz that a nation iz like a cattle ranch and the goverment duz wutevr it likes to the 'sitizen' cowz. Even the worst dictatorz get away with virtually anything. The so called 'developed nationz' shy away from intervening due to the expens uv war and fig leaf excusez based on poorly considered soverin state notionz.

The bottom line iz that the law uv the jungle iz still at the foundation uv all our artificial lawz. Mite makes rite.

The US haz the mite to overthrow all the nasty little autocrats on Earth. It woud be easy to justify on humanitarian groundz.

Suppoze The UN and all the other member nationz deside that Uncle Sam iz committing a humanitarian crime with it's 2nd amendment and demandz remedy - or else?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3184
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:56 am

xouper wrote:It seems you are merely repeating the spin doctoring by Andrew Torrez in that podcast you cited.

Scalia (and the rest of them) had a huge amount of precedent for their decision, and this is well documented.



false.

Before Scalia, the Originalisms was a fringe idea; Scalia explicitly acknowledged that he wasn't referring to any previous rulings on guns when considering the Heller case.
Before this all state-rulings on guns were about restricting gun rights.

You are deeply misguided if you have convinced yourself that we got the Constitution wrong for 200 years.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:12 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:It seems you are merely repeating the spin doctoring by Andrew Torrez in that podcast you cited.

Scalia (and the rest of them) had a huge amount of precedent for their decision, and this is well documented.



false.

Before Scalia, the Originalisms was a fringe idea; Scalia explicitly acknowledged that he wasn't referring to any previous rulings on guns when considering the Heller case.
Before this all state-rulings on guns were about restricting gun rights.

You are deeply misguided if you have convinced yourself that we got the Constitution wrong for 200 years.


:roll:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:42 pm

X: what was the precedent that Scalia cited?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X: what was the precedent that Scalia cited?


In the Heller case, the numerous precedents cited are clearly explained here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:18 am

X: what was the precedent that Scalia cited?

On a fast skim designed not to see any, what I saw was lots of background, history, and boilerplate. NOT PRECEDENT.

I suspect you don't know the difference.

Prove me wrong.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:30 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:It seems you are merely repeating the spin doctoring by Andrew Torrez in that podcast you cited.

Scalia (and the rest of them) had a huge amount of precedent for their decision, and this is well documented.


false.

Before Scalia, the Originalisms was a fringe idea; Scalia explicitly acknowledged that he wasn't referring to any previous rulings on guns when considering the Heller case.
Before this all state-rulings on guns were about restricting gun rights.

You are deeply misguided if you have convinced yourself that we got the Constitution wrong for 200 years.


That is factually incorrect. Especially the part I highlighted in yellow.

See for example this state court case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.


See also another state court case cited below.

Perhaps your error is listening only to podcasts from lawyers who are biased against guns.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X: what was the precedent that Scalia cited?

On a fast skim designed not to see any, what I saw was lots of background, history, and boilerplate. NOT PRECEDENT.

I suspect you don't know the difference.

Prove me wrong.


Not my problem if you can't comprehend the court ruling.

In any case, the Nunn case cited above was also cited as precedent in the Heller case.

There I proved you wrong.

Another state court case that was cited as precedent in Heller is this:

State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”


Both you and Monk are mistaken when you say there are no state court precedents for upholding the Second Amendment right of the people as an individual right to own and carry arms.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:24 am

You are particularly ignorant in your reading of the law. A state court decision from 1846 or yesterday IS NOT PRECEDENT on the Supremes. ONLY other Supreme Court decision are precedent on the Supremes. Like i tried to educate you: " lots of background, history, and boilerplate." there could be a precedent in there somewhere, I'm just mostly taking EM's word for it and the fact you think there is a constitutional right to drive a car.

Basics. The vocabulary of the subject is unknown to you.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You are particularly ignorant in your reading of the law. A state court decision from 1846 or yesterday IS NOT PRECEDENT on the Supremes. ONLY other Supreme Court decision are precedent on the Supremes. Like i tried to educate you: " lots of background, history, and boilerplate." there could be a precedent in there somewhere, I'm just mostly taking EM's word for it and the fact you think there is a constitutional right to drive a car.

Basics. The vocabulary of the subject is unknown to you.


You are guilty of equivocation fallacy.

The Supreme Court clearly cited those two cases and many others as precedent for their ruling in Heller.

Your delusional hand-waving does not change that fact.

Here is the legal definition of "precedent":

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent wrote:A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases.

. . . Appellate courts typically create precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court's main function is to settle conflicts over legal rules and to issue decisions that either reaffirm or create precedent.


Contrary to your assertion, a "precedent" is not limited to only a prior Supreme Court case. It can mean any prior case at any level.

Perhaps you are conflating "binding precedent" and "persuasive precedent". They are both precedent.

Here is a short discussion of the difference: https://legaldictionary.net/precedent/


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: . . . and the fact you think there is a constitutional right to drive a car.


There is indeed a constitutional right own and drive a car. It's in the Ninth Amendment, not to mention such a right is subsumed in the general right to own and use private property.

Example: No one needs government permission or a license to own and drive vehicles on private property. Farmers and ranchers do it all the time. Same for Zambonis in private ice arenas. Nor do you need a license to fly certain kinds of aircraft.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:11 am

Pearls before swine.

Yes, its a subtle distinction but with a difference. Precedent is binding on lower courts. But no state ruling is precedent (binding) on the Supremes so the best view is as stated: such case references are background, history, and boilerplate //// excuse, justification, cover, malfeasance. IN CONTEXT: EM's point was there was no precedent controlling, to the degree they can, the courts decision in Heller. Pop literature talks about precedent as you do, the experts don't. I agree its confusing for the word to be used that way, but such is life.

As to private ownership of cars on private property: you should make a clear distinction between owning and driving cars. Different laws apply to each activity/status and each is entirely subject to whatever the local law says. I agree, the law generally allows for ownership of most items and the use of most such items on your own private property. Those laws are as written by the States/Local authorities. NO constitutional rights as you suggest.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:44 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Pearls before swine.

Yes, its a subtle distinction but with a difference. Precedent is binding on lower courts. But no state ruling is precedent (binding) on the Supremes so the best view is as stated: such case references are background, history, and boilerplate //// excuse, justification, cover, malfeasance. IN CONTEXT: EM's point was there was no precedent controlling, to the degree they can, the courts decision in Heller. Pop literature talks about precedent as you do, the experts don't. I agree its confusing for the word to be used that way, but such is life.

As to private ownership of cars on private property: you should make a clear distinction between owning and driving cars. Different laws apply to each activity/status and each is entirely subject to whatever the local law says. I agree, the law generally allows for ownership of most items and the use of most such items on your own private property. Those laws are as written by the States/Local authorities. NO constitutional rights as you suggest.


:roll:

My claim remains unrefuted that the Heller case cites prior court cases as precedent.

Precedents don't need to be binding to qualify as precedents. Sorry, but I reject your straw man fallacy on my claim.

Also, contrary to your assertion, legal experts have in fact "talked" about such precedents, and in fact the Heller decision itself talks about such precedents.

You on the other hand are talking out your ass.

The right to own and use property is indeed protected by the US Constitution. And subsumed in that right is the kind of property called "automobiles".

Additionally, the right to drive is subsumed under the Constitutionally protected right to travel.

Sorry, but I do not accept your word games.

Here's a court case on that point, Thompson v. Smith:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366 wrote:The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.


See also:

http://realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm
Last edited by xouper on Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:47 am

For grins, I went back and read the case a bit closer. Its hard to argue the distinction i advance when Scalia calls the other lower court cases precedents himself..............but the same Scalia would be totally pissed if some lawyer before him said he had precedents in a case before the court that were "actually" lower court cases.

In the common usage of the SUPREME court........if there was precedent, they would have cited it and the case would have been decided.........if taken at all. In fact...........the precedent that WAS THERE was Miller...which Scalia and 4 other bros in this 5-4 decision simply ignored. Its kinda like the old joke of "If it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." In common usuage: luck means good luck just as precedent means CONTROLLING precedent. But.....when you want to overturn an existing Supreme Court Case (Miller) you clasp and ignore as Scalia does.

the Stevens dissent is a good read. Don't miss it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10635
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:53 am

X: well done. AFTER your quoted material, we have this: "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications,
378
*378 under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. //// In other words......no constitutional right to own or drive a car but there is a right to be treated the same as everyone else............................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10450
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Sutherland shooting

Postby xouper » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:59 am

:roll:


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest