Reminds me of a certain self proclaimed lawyer that claims the recent Supreme Court rulings are wrong and that the 2nd Amendment does not grant an individual right.
I'm a cut and paste artist with a better grasp of the facts than you have.
I believe I've been "outed" in the past and they verified my Law School attendance and Bar admissions from my professional website.
Of course, I no longer live in that Jurisdiction, but I have kept my US bar affiliations and just completed my CLE requirement.
Are you able to make an intelligent comment, or do you just do ad hominem?
Can you refute the substance from my "Cut and paste", or do you just call people names because you are at a loss to substantially refute what I am saying to you.
Anyway, Copying from one person is plagiarism, from two research.
Well Laci without you posting a copy of your law degree how am I to be certain you are what you say you are?
But that really has no bearing on the current truth regarding 2nd Amendment law and who is too stupid to realise what the recent rulings stated. I thought I was very clear in stating that the recent cases proclaim the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. Do you still deny this ruling? Will you only claim that the ruling is wrong while continuing to ignore the statements made by the majority decision? Will you continue to quote past Supreme Court decisions as if they supercede the most recent decision? That seems to be your playbook. Ignore the current reality for what you think will happen in future court decisions. Ignore the current reality to continually talk about how the Justices are wrong.
You have changed your tune a little recently and have gone on to talk about the restrictions allowed on our individual right. Maybe you have come to accept the individual right portion of the decision? If so, then we have made some progress.
Now I have never denied that restrictions are allowed. What that ends up meaning will take place over the next several years if not decades as more laws are passed and more lawsuits are filed. Eventually more decisions will be made as to what is allowed and what is not. All of which I am willing to bet will be decided by as many words of mine as of yours proclaimed before the Supreme Court.
And just for the record, I am not a lawyer and I have never said I was a lawyer. I apologize if I gave you that impression as I would never want to insult myself in such a way as to claim to be a lawyer.
Furthermore, DimJim, I make a good living because people like you thing they understand legal texts when they don't have the slightest idea of what the fuck is going on.
So, unless you can make an intelligent comment, I suggest you stop showing the world what a fuckwit you are.
I searched for Laci the Dog but could not find a lawyer with that name... am I missing something?
From what I understand the majority decision on Heller stated was that the 2nd Amendment does grant an individual right that can be regulated. It did not give an exhaustive list of what regulations are accpetable and which are not. Therefore, further rulings by the Courts and further laws passed by legislatures will decide what that means. What I do know is that you will have zero influence on any of those outcomes. So enjoy your time in court (assuming you are telling the truth about your law credentials) and I will go about my life. And you know what - nothing you do or think will ever have an effect on me. Sorry to burst your over hyped opinion of your self worth to the world of law.
We have OR, who has no credentials, and who appears unable to present a reasoned, cogent, well researched position on anything.
Someone like that wouldn't know a real lawyer from a pretend anything; they have no frame of reference, no context in which to critique, no capacity for critical thinking.
There opposition when faced with fact is to act like a kindergarten kid, in a 'did not' 'did too' inarticulate conflict, totally lacking substance. They do not understand, they parrot, they are sock puppets who need to repeat what someone else, dummies like Rush Limbaugh, tell them. They neither know nor care if what they say is true. They live in the 'because I want it to be this way' alternate right wing nut pseudoreality, not the real world of fact.
They don't even know enough to be ashamed of their own ignorance.
"but because that's they way it was intended to be interpreted if you were able to do historic and legal research."
Again you assume that your opinion on how something was intended to be interpreted is greater than that of 5 supreme court justices. Your opinion of yourself seems to know no bounds.
I am a humble person. I accept the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled and until another legislative body acts or another court ruling says otherwise, then Heller is the law of the land in the United States. It jas nothing to do with what I think the law should be, only that I acknowledge what actually is today.
Laci - i will admit that I have not read all 3000 times that you have referenced old case law in support of your arguement on why Heller should be overturned. You keep saying the same thing over and over as if repeating it enough will make it true.
I concede your logic may be flawless and if given the chance to make your arguement in front of the Supreme Court you may even come out victorious.
How does any of that change the fundamental truth that as of today - August 23, 2011 the current ruling of the Supreme Court is that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right? Is that a correct understanding of the Supreme Court ruling in Heller? Doesn't it take another law to be passed or court decision to be made to change that determination?
Reminds me of a certain self proclaimed lawyer that claims the recent Supreme Court rulings are wrong and that the 2nd Amendment does not grant an individual right.
ReplyDeleteHardly self proclaimed, Jim, admitted to the Bar in a few Jurisidictions.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about gunloons who are too stupid to realise what the law says.
You did read the Didn't you folks get the Memo on Heller-McDonald? post?
Even more importantly, were you able to understand it?
And where did you go to law school, Jim?
ReplyDeleteAnd where are you admitted to practise law as well?
You have no way to prove that you are anything more than a cut and paste artist.
ReplyDeleteI'm a cut and paste artist with a better grasp of the facts than you have.
ReplyDeleteI believe I've been "outed" in the past and they verified my Law School attendance and Bar admissions from my professional website.
Of course, I no longer live in that Jurisdiction, but I have kept my US bar affiliations and just completed my CLE requirement.
Are you able to make an intelligent comment, or do you just do ad hominem?
Can you refute the substance from my "Cut and paste", or do you just call people names because you are at a loss to substantially refute what I am saying to you.
Anyway, Copying from one person is plagiarism, from two research.
BTW, if you were as intelligent as you all believe yourselves to be, there is a way to verify my current caseload.
ReplyDeleteBut you prefer to say things without basis.
So have fun playing with yourselves.
Well Laci without you posting a copy of your law degree how am I to be certain you are what you say you are?
ReplyDeleteBut that really has no bearing on the current truth regarding 2nd Amendment law and who is too stupid to realise what the recent rulings stated. I thought I was very clear in stating that the recent cases proclaim the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right. Do you still deny this ruling? Will you only claim that the ruling is wrong while continuing to ignore the statements made by the majority decision? Will you continue to quote past Supreme Court decisions as if they supercede the most recent decision? That seems to be your playbook. Ignore the current reality for what you think will happen in future court decisions. Ignore the current reality to continually talk about how the Justices are wrong.
You have changed your tune a little recently and have gone on to talk about the restrictions allowed on our individual right. Maybe you have come to accept the individual right portion of the decision? If so, then we have made some progress.
Now I have never denied that restrictions are allowed. What that ends up meaning will take place over the next several years if not decades as more laws are passed and more lawsuits are filed. Eventually more decisions will be made as to what is allowed and what is not. All of which I am willing to bet will be decided by as many words of mine as of yours proclaimed before the Supreme Court.
And just for the record, I am not a lawyer and I have never said I was a lawyer. I apologize if I gave you that impression as I would never want to insult myself in such a way as to claim to be a lawyer.
Jim, you don't need to post anything for me to know you are a complete and total dickhead.
ReplyDeleteExplain "individual right" in light of the passages I have printed from Scalia's and Alito's opinions.
Jim, do you know that Stevens' opinion followed the Civic Right model?
Jim, you are far too stupid to understand what I write--don't bother trying.
I know that I won't bother with reading your demonstrations of ignorance in future.
BTW, Jim, I am a lawyer and I have been admitted to the bar for over 20 years.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are sites on line that verify my information.
So, no you don't need to go to http://www.exeter.ac.uk/ to verify my degree.
Furthermore, DimJim, I make a good living because people like you thing they understand legal texts when they don't have the slightest idea of what the fuck is going on.
ReplyDeleteSo, unless you can make an intelligent comment, I suggest you stop showing the world what a fuckwit you are.
I searched for Laci the Dog but could not find a lawyer with that name... am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand the majority decision on Heller stated was that the 2nd Amendment does grant an individual right that can be regulated. It did not give an exhaustive list of what regulations are accpetable and which are not. Therefore, further rulings by the Courts and further laws passed by legislatures will decide what that means. What I do know is that you will have zero influence on any of those outcomes. So enjoy your time in court (assuming you are telling the truth about your law credentials) and I will go about my life. And you know what - nothing you do or think will ever have an effect on me. Sorry to burst your over hyped opinion of your self worth to the world of law.
"http://www.google.ex.ac.uk/search?site=default_collection&client=redesign_frontend&proxystylesheet=redesign_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxyreload=1&q=laci+the+dog"
ReplyDeleteSee - no results... are you sure that was the right school to search for you?
....post under the nom de plume Laci the Dog every day....
ReplyDeleteHe knows of what he speaks.... he is the fuckwit with a degree....
Yeahhhh, they gove fuckwits degrees.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jim, you should really just shut up.
Chinese proverb-
It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are an idiot than open it and confirm that you are.
But it is fun watching you show yourself up for being a fuckwit.
At least the other moron has the correct line of inquiry.
I know you love playing with yourself, Jim, so I'll let you go at it.
BTW, I love annoying you gunloons and watching you say stuff that you can't back up.
ReplyDeleteKeep trying--maybe you might say something intelligent.
Kinda like monkeys typing randomly on typewriters producing the complete works of Shakespeare.
one pretend lawyer, trying to change US constitution, by saying, "because I say so....."
ReplyDeleteI think you need to be able to understand what I am writing before trying to comment, Or.
ReplyDeleteIt's not becaause "I said", but because that's they way it was intended to be interpreted if you were able to do historic and legal research.
But, you, Jim, and the rest of you don't have the education or the experience to do that.
So, you say I'm a pretend lawyer.
Dream on.
OK, if I'm not a lawyer file a complaint about my unlicenced practise of law.
ReplyDeleteI can see you bozos filing such a complaint in my dog's names.
Sorry, but I have an LL.M. and JD and have been licenced to practise law for over 21 years.
And Laci is a former DOJ lawyer.
ReplyDeleteWe have OR, who has no credentials, and who appears unable to present a reasoned, cogent, well researched position on anything.
ReplyDeleteSomeone like that wouldn't know a real lawyer from a pretend anything; they have no frame of reference, no context in which to critique, no capacity for critical thinking.
There opposition when faced with fact is to act like a kindergarten kid, in a 'did not' 'did too' inarticulate conflict, totally lacking substance. They do not understand, they parrot, they are sock puppets who need to repeat what someone else, dummies like Rush Limbaugh, tell them. They neither know nor care if what they say is true. They live in the 'because I want it to be this way' alternate right wing nut pseudoreality, not the real world of fact.
They don't even know enough to be ashamed of their own ignorance.
FWIW, Laci isn't a "pretend lawyer"--he worked to achieve that vile description.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't worth anything, Pudd.
ReplyDeleteIt only shows you for the ignorant people you all are.
"but because that's they way it was intended to be interpreted if you were able to do historic and legal research."
ReplyDeleteAgain you assume that your opinion on how something was intended to be interpreted is greater than that of 5 supreme court justices. Your opinion of yourself seems to know no bounds.
I am a humble person. I accept the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled and until another legislative body acts or another court ruling says otherwise, then Heller is the law of the land in the United States. It jas nothing to do with what I think the law should be, only that I acknowledge what actually is today.
Laci - you seem unable to do this.
Jim, you show that you either haven't read my posts.
ReplyDeleteIf you did, you are unable to understand them.
No further comment.
Laci - i will admit that I have not read all 3000 times that you have referenced old case law in support of your arguement on why Heller should be overturned. You keep saying the same thing over and over as if repeating it enough will make it true.
ReplyDeleteI concede your logic may be flawless and if given the chance to make your arguement in front of the Supreme Court you may even come out victorious.
How does any of that change the fundamental truth that as of today - August 23, 2011 the current ruling of the Supreme Court is that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right? Is that a correct understanding of the Supreme Court ruling in Heller? Doesn't it take another law to be passed or court decision to be made to change that determination?