Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-27-2017, 12:18   #946
Sohei
Area Commander
 
Sohei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick View Post
Tell us something we don't know!

US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties - Fox News
https://apple.news/AHDeUV0vSSsS5BhQX2UBL6A

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that areas with the highest gun ownership rates have low murder rates.
"While many factors explain these concentrated murders, it is also striking that the counties with zero murders are the counties with by far the highest gun ownership rates," Lott said.
Brother, you know you can't introduce logic into this equation....

Logic was old school, it went out when kids quit "getting" to wash the blackboards for doing well.
Sohei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 19:05   #947
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick View Post
Tell us something we don't know!

US murders concentrated in 5 percent of counties - Fox News
https://apple.news/AHDeUV0vSSsS5BhQX2UBL6A

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that areas with the highest gun ownership rates have low murder rates.
"While many factors explain these concentrated murders, it is also striking that the counties with zero murders are the counties with by far the highest gun ownership rates," Lott said.
Obama and Hillary supporters are undoubtably well represented in that deadly 5%...illegal immigrants? Sanctuary cities? Gangs? Illegal drugs? Gun control advocates? Community organizers? Statists? Globalists?

Contrast the leftist carnage with the counties experiencing essentially zero murders and possessing lotsa iron.

Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here...it's not the pencil after all...but the writer...
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2017, 20:21   #948
mojaveman
Area Commander
 
mojaveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Harmony Church
Posts: 2,633
Just read that President Trump is going to visit the NRA convention in Atlanta tomorrow. Wish I were there just to hear the cheering and applause.
mojaveman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 05:43   #949
Hand
Guerrilla Chief
 
Hand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojaveman View Post
Just read that President Trump is going to visit the NRA convention in Atlanta tomorrow. Wish I were there just to hear the cheering and applause.
Not for naught, but if you dig a bit, you can usually find somebody livestreaming on either Periscope, Facebook Live, Youtube or Twitter.
__________________
"I'm going trick or treating at an all women's college dressed as a safe space." - Divemaster

"Fuck that - man up - kick over the podium, piss on the teleprompter, wave your dick at the TV cameras and drop the mic' as you walk off the stage. " - the QP formerly known as BillyLBach
Hand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2017, 10:29   #950
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-v-california/

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.


•Judge Neil Gorsuch now sits on the US Supreme Court. Possibly we could see a favorable 5/4 ruling!
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2017, 13:25   #951
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-v-california/

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.


•Judge Neil Gorsuch now sits on the US Supreme Court. Possibly we could see a favorable 5/4 ruling!
There are some pretty weighty amici curiae briefs in there. For the barristers or SCOTUS watchers (looking at that link), is that part of their "process" to update once/week like that, and/or are meeting on it, or does it appear they are kicking the can down the road?

Hope it leaves a big ugly bruise on Kali when it lands.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2017, 14:03   #952
Pericles
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: CONUS TX when not OCONUS
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger52 View Post
There are some pretty weighty amici curiae briefs in there. For the barristers or SCOTUS watchers (looking at that link), is that part of their "process" to update once/week like that, and/or are meeting on it, or does it appear they are kicking the can down the road?

Hope it leaves a big ugly bruise on Kali when it lands.
Kicking the can down the road as two or more justices are trying to convince one or more to vote to hear the case. Need at least 4 justices to agree to put the case on the docket.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you have not properly planned the operation.
Pericles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 08:36   #953
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
4th Circuit En Banc- 2A doesn't protect assault rifles and magazines

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....es/16a1074.htm

May 10 2017
Application (16A1074) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 21, 2017.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/4th...#axzz4j8fJm6ez

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/4th...#ixzz4j8grWw2M
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

The 4th Circuit en banc declared that “contrary to the now-vacated decision of our prior panel — the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment.
That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’ — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach…Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.” It further stated that the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to such a challenge was intermediate scrutiny. In other words, the Court believes that the Second Amendment does not warrant the highest level of protection when analyzing a challenge to the constitutionality of a law it may infringe upon.
Many people have been asking “how will this affect me”? Remember at the beginning where I listed the states the 4th Circuit covers? This decision is only binding on lower federal courts in those states. Unfortunately, that means if a law restricting certain types of firearms is passed in any of those states and someone brings a challenge to the constitutionality of it under the Second Amendment, it has now opened the door for restrictions on what firearms the Second Amendment protects. If you reside in a different state, no courts are bound by the decision. However, they can cite to it as persuasive authority, which is problematic, especially if other courts begin to adopt the perverted logic employed by the 4th Circuit.
When we were reviewing the script for this episode, Jon asked me how we could fight such a terrible decision. The fact of the matter is, there isn’t really any way to do so, short of contacting your congressional representatives. As you probably know, we have a system of government that is designed to have checks and balances on one another. If you didn’t know that, don’t worry, I’ve included another School House Rock episode for you to enjoy.
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2017, 10:01   #954
Pericles
Guerrilla
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: CONUS TX when not OCONUS
Posts: 177
I find it fascinating how this language from the Heller decision:

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra

....

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Became Heller decided M16s are not protected by the 2A.
__________________
If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you have not properly planned the operation.

Last edited by Pericles; 06-07-2017 at 10:07.
Pericles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2017, 09:40   #955
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
I find it fascinating how this language from the Heller decision:

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra

....

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Became Heller decided M16s are not protected by the 2A.
I'd say misquoted Heller is either stupidity or judicial activism in the decision. Quite possibly both.
Also the argument over "common use", that the AR-15 is not considered common use!

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...y-act-Maryland

Quote:
The Firearms Safety Act does not ban the sale of an AR-15 with a heavy barrel. In fact, it is not a "regulated" firearm in Maryland. The AR-10 is not banned in Maryland and can be purchased and carried out of the store on the same day. The difference between an AR-10 and an AR-15? The AR-10 is a larger caliber firearm. The truth is, Maryland does not really have an assault weapons ban as they claim.

The Firearms Safety Act of 2013 is a very poor attempt, a quick fix, at reducing gun violence in Maryland. As a retired police officer, I worked to combat violent crime for 23 years across the state of Maryland. I have a very strong understanding of the causes of violence and tactics we can use to reduce violence. I have worked in specialized units to target gun violence and gang violence. We are not addressing the true causes of gun violence. Maryland's efforts to reduce gun violence by passing a very poor piece of legislation are out of focus.
Jack Mccauley
It is also of a note than many in Maryland purchase %80 lowers and put on HB uppers completely within the law. Many dealer also now sell gas piston AR's that are not regulated by the FSA 2013 law in fact as sold as cash and carry only with ATF 4473. Explain that to a progressive liberal?
pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2017, 08:53   #956
tonyz
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,792
The May 2017 numbers are in.

NICS Firearm Background Checks:

Month/Year

November 30, 1998 - May 31, 2017

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...month_year.pdf
__________________
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.

Marcus Tullius Cicero
tonyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 10:03   #957
pcfixer
Guerrilla
 
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 450
Quote:
"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice:
They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it…." —Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch
.

pcfixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 14:40   #958
bblhead672
Area Commander
 
bblhead672's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
.
"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice:
They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it…." —Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch
Exactly!
bblhead672 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 20:17   #959
Ret10Echo
Quiet Professional
 
Ret10Echo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Occupied America....
Posts: 4,740
I think that the point Thomas brings where the 2nd Amendment is treated as a "disfavored right" where the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not limited to the "confines of ones home".

For that matter, is the First Amendment solely for private conversations away from public space?

Why is the 9th Circus Kort allowed to perpetuate this level of complete disregard for the Constitution?

Amazing
__________________
"There are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"

James Madison

Last edited by Ret10Echo; 06-27-2017 at 20:19.
Ret10Echo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2017, 05:45   #960
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ret10Echo View Post
For that matter, is the First Amendment solely for private conversations away from public space?

Why is the 9th Circus Kort allowed to perpetuate this level of complete disregard for the Constitution?

Amazing
I think such jurists make a conscious choice to ignore the history of what it took to get the BoR passed after the USCon's ratification. (Many of the time, for example, were distraught that there would still be no religious test for office-holders, "...lest Turks, Jews and other Infidels" find their way into the new national government.) The 9th Circuit's composition is usually an embodiment of that selective allocation of freedom, as they've become an arm of the states where the infringements take place rather than a check on oppressive states. Pushing back against that is, alas, a task that doesn't go away.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:20.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies