tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post5095144583885377725..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Laci SaysAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-77791538196889640712009-10-15T19:12:09.906+02:002009-10-15T19:12:09.906+02:00"The fact that I find Heller to be incorrectl...<i>"The fact that I find Heller to be incorrectly decided, as did the dissent."</i><br /><br />Clearly you need to re-read the dissenting opinions. ALL 9 Justices rejected the "collective rights" position, concluding that the 2A is an individual right.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-51791083996621781122009-10-15T16:23:41.549+02:002009-10-15T16:23:41.549+02:00"I know full well that if I needed a defense ..."I know full well that if I needed a defense attorney for a gun charge I'd go to someone who was knowledgeable about guns and 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. I'd be better off representing myself than with you as my lawyer."<br /><br />+1 I have a few cards in my wallet if you want them.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-49228749705881550472009-10-15T03:32:07.679+02:002009-10-15T03:32:07.679+02:00"I know full well that if any of you were pay..."I know full well that if any of you were paying me what I charge for a defence on gun charges, you would be kissing my ass."<br /><br />Hmmm, a trial lawyer who doesn't know how to spell the word "defence" is very telling.<br /><br />Maybe you should tell all your clients that yu wil dephend thim 2 the best ov yure abilitees(just be sure to put this in writing for the full effect). <br /><br />"In case you missed it, Heller was refused a permit for one of his guns!"<br /><br />This was due to the fact that DC defined semi-autos as fully automatic machine guns, which they, by correct definition, are certainly not.<br /><br />If you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that semi-autos and full-autos operate very differently, then you are...uh...intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />Words matter.kavemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-61087363650461361222009-10-14T23:09:16.282+02:002009-10-14T23:09:16.282+02:00VoR, I couldn't give a toss for what you say. ...<i>VoR, I couldn't give a toss for what you say. I know full well that if any of you were paying me what I charge for a defence on gun charges, you would be kissing my ass.</i><br /><br />Very classy of you.<br /><br />I know full well that if I needed a defense attorney for a gun charge I'd go to someone who was knowledgeable about guns and 2nd Amendment jurisprudence. I'd be better off representing myself than with you as my lawyer.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-65382187714719781462009-10-14T21:57:34.632+02:002009-10-14T21:57:34.632+02:00I said Stare decisis is what keeps a decision from...<i>I said Stare decisis is what keeps a decision from being ignored.</i><br /><br />Really? because the SCOTUS has been ignoring Stare Decisis for years in all kinds of cases.<br /><br />It's not as if it's some hard & fast rule and the SCOTUS never bucked precedent before <i>Heller</i> despite your insinuation that this is something new.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-40993091640639801422009-10-14T19:28:27.352+02:002009-10-14T19:28:27.352+02:00Laci is also ignoring the fact that in Heller, all...Laci is also ignoring the fact that in Heller, all 9 justices believed the Second Amendment was an individual right.AztecRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027951757285806109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-42848652707061286502009-10-14T14:53:44.636+02:002009-10-14T14:53:44.636+02:00Funny Laci, you keep flatly ignoring the rest of M...Funny Laci, you keep flatly ignoring the rest of MILLER which explicitely supports the individual rights approach.<br /><br />Why is that? Are you incapable of intellectual honesty?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-64106938494730790592009-10-14T13:27:18.335+02:002009-10-14T13:27:18.335+02:00Seventeen, you ask the most salient question.
It ...Seventeen, you ask the most salient question.<br /><br />It protects us from the establishment of a standing army by ensuring a vibrant militia. In practise, the US should have a military like that of Switzerland.<br /><br />Ever wonder why there are so few cases discussing the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court. The only Amendment with less jurisprudence is the third Amendment.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-51484885220815397262009-10-14T13:23:53.659+02:002009-10-14T13:23:53.659+02:00TomB,
I said Stare decisis is what keeps a decisi...TomB, <br />I said Stare decisis is what keeps a decision from being ignored. However, <i>US. V Miller</i> was ignored despite its being considered solid precedent prior to <i>Heller</i> as a unanimous decision.<br /><br />So, I guess <i>Heller</i> itself is where it say that its precedent can be disregarded. Also, all it takes it to persuade a majority, or more, of the justices that your point is correct. So, there is nothing to stop a court sometime in the future from saying that the interpretation taken by the majority in <i>Heller</i> has no legal basis.<br /><br />Since none of you are intelligent to look up <i>Rybar</i>, Samuel Alito was on that three judge panel that found no merit in Rybar's Second Amendment defence. He didn't feel bound by <i>stare decisis</i>.<br /><br />Also, you seem to have glommed on to the pharase "individual right". The "individual right" that was mysteriously "found" in <i>Heller</i> is extremely limited. In case you missed it, Heller was refused a permit for one of his guns!<br /><br />You all seem to miss this, but the Civic right interpretation has nothing to do with gun rights, it has to do with constitutional interpretation. It is the only correct interpretation using Constitutional law and proper legal method.<br /><br />VoR, I couldn't give a toss for what you say. I know full well that if any of you were paying me what I charge for a defence on gun charges, you would be kissing my ass.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-67810114837532763722009-10-14T12:25:28.953+02:002009-10-14T12:25:28.953+02:00I don't know about "irrelevant." I t...<i>I don't know about "irrelevant." I think we can express opinions and argue all we want. We can predict that one day when the Supreme Court is a bit more reasonable, perhaps after Scalia retires, the law of the land will change once again.<br /><br />What would you say then, VOR? Imagine if the most severe gun prohibitions one day become the law of the land, what would you say then?</i><br /><br />Sorry mike, but according to the legal scholar Laci, the ruling (all other things being equal) will be 5-4 again and thus, not proper law.<br /><br />How's that seach going Laci? Where is the cite or law that says a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court can be ignored because it is not "proper"?TomBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-2043583486806745022009-10-14T09:16:03.635+02:002009-10-14T09:16:03.635+02:00VOR says, "Heller is now the law of the land....VOR says, <i>"Heller is now the law of the land. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant."</i><br /><br />I don't know about "irrelevant." I think we can express opinions and argue all we want. We can predict that one day when the Supreme Court is a bit more reasonable, perhaps after Scalia retires, the law of the land will change once again.<br /><br />What would you say then, VOR? Imagine if the most severe gun prohibitions one day become the law of the land, what would you say then?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79552333200795348892009-10-14T04:16:43.931+02:002009-10-14T04:16:43.931+02:00Once again I ask--If the Second Amendment is a col...Once again I ask--If the Second Amendment is a collective right, what does that version of it do? Does it require something of the government? Does it restrict the government?Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-56023868063849997822009-10-14T02:13:32.804+02:002009-10-14T02:13:32.804+02:00I see Laci is bloviating once again. I must have ...I see Laci is bloviating once again. I must have hit a nerve the last time when I called her a SIBOG.<br /><br />Laci, get it straight and forget the demagoguery. Miller was NOT about some collectivist right that you (and others) seem to want to divine from the opinion. It was about the suitability of a sawed off shotgun for milita use.<br /><br />Heller is the law of the land. 2A is an individual right.<br /><br />For those who did not read an earlier post of mine: SIBOG = Self Important Bag of GasVORnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-10115853163933322112009-10-14T01:11:41.665+02:002009-10-14T01:11:41.665+02:00I don't think it made very much difference whe...I don't think it made very much difference whether Miller had a sawed-off shotgun or a machinegun for the very important reason that this was a NFA test case. Both weapons were listed.<br /><br />Additionally, Miller uses the civic right language to determine the scope of the right. The focus of the <i>Miller</i> opinion, therefore, was <b>NOT</b> the weapon. It was whether it's possession <br /><br />Thus the language would have been <br />In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a machinegun at this time <b>has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,</b> we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.<br /><br />Sorry, but that's collective right language. BUt, you can believe whatever you wish.<br /><br />After all, "it's turtles all the way down!"Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58345116698378815842009-10-14T00:04:02.255+02:002009-10-14T00:04:02.255+02:00Addendum: And here I always thought the world was ...Addendum: And here I always thought the world was on the back of 4 giant turtles, all standing on the back of the great Turtle. Darn differences of opinion between Hawking and Pratchett!<br /><br />Also, in response to the 'giving up another right to the federal government', their hope is actually to affirm a right that they believe the government has always endorsed. Once again, the whole 'read/analyze/conclude' vs. 'conclude/interpret everything to support conclusion'.cjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06434394029715703215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-53330548001149039402009-10-13T23:58:07.530+02:002009-10-13T23:58:07.530+02:00Laci (since responses are disallowed on your site)...Laci (since responses are disallowed on your site) - The 'individual right' argument has been so refuted that the current direction of gun control has stopped even trying that route. The briefs to the court which tried that argument were basically ignored, and the real thinkers behind gun control strategy have stopped bothering with that route.<br /><br />There are so many arguments which don't even consider the topic of the second amendment, from basic literary analysis to a holistic review of the Bill of Rights and the amendments' positions and relationships to each other which all support the 'individual right'.<br /><br />So, how to educate everyone else when you know you're right? First, step back and take a look at reality. If everyone believes something, and you KNOW it's not true, the first person to investigate is yourself, locating an impartial person to provide the evaluation (a psychiatrist might be a good choice as they are skilled at helping such self-investigation). If after such an investigation, you conclude that you ARE correct, you could try to find others to bond with for a louder voice, run for political office, or try to put the message out there (such as your blog, becoming a reporter, etc.).<br /><br />Good luck on this, read a little more about the cause you support...but overall I'd really recommend investigating and coming to conclusions rather than your current approach of forming your conclusions and only looking at evidence you feel supports your own belief. One is science, the other is called, I was told, "fishing".cjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06434394029715703215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-47472067124460690862009-10-13T22:52:11.610+02:002009-10-13T22:52:11.610+02:00You, Tom B, should read my posts on why Heller is ...<i>You, Tom B, should read my posts on why Heller is incorrectly decided. In fact, you should look at some of the other critiques of Heller I mention both "pro-" and "anti-" gun.<br /></i><br /><br />Your opinion as to whether Heller is right or wrong is completely beside the point. I don't care what you think. Heller is the law of the land, and that's that for now.<br /><br />Now <i>you</i>, Laci, you need to answer the question asked numerous times of you for the precedent or law that states a Supreme Court decision of 5 to 4 is not "proper" law.<br /><br />Numerous people have asked this from you, so you need to either give the evidence or withdraw the assertion.TomBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-18143987718369569052009-10-13T21:54:02.929+02:002009-10-13T21:54:02.929+02:00But, it does remove the Second Amendment from the ...<i>But, it does remove the Second Amendment from the concept of "gun rights". That means whatever gun rights exist are found in State Constutions</i><br /><br />Really?! You do realize the 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights for the entire United States?<br /><br /><i>Had the decision related to the firearm rather than a relationship to the common defence, the court would have found for Miller.</i><br /><br />How can you say this after reading the decision? (perhaps you haven't?) The Court specifically ruled against miller <b>because of the specific firearm in question</b> a sawed-off shotgun. <br /><br />The Court was of course incorrect in stating that the shotgun had no relation to militia and was not an "arm" under the 2A, but Miller was dead and thus is case was not argued in front of the court.<br /><br />Also Laci, how can you have a collective right to use arms in "common-defence" while serving in a militia while not having a right to self-defense as an individual?<br /><br />If you have no right to defend yourself as an individual how can you be expected to join the militia in common-defense? <br /><br />Remember, Miller stated that citizens were to appear bearing their personally held arms. (see Militia Acts 1792)<br /><br />How were citizens to appear for service with their own arms and ammunition if they had no <b>individual right</b> to own said arms and use them, if needed, to defend themselves?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-29098466047146292392009-10-13T21:43:27.531+02:002009-10-13T21:43:27.531+02:00I see Laci is bloviating again. I see I struck a ...I see Laci is bloviating again. I see I struck a nerve when I called LACI a SIBOG. Anyway, Miller states:<br /><br />In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.<br /><br />Miller only ruled on the possession of a sawed off shotgun (without a tax stamp) since it was NOT suitable for military use. You should note that shotguns with 18" barrel length (or longer) were not subject to NFA regulation. 18" length barrels were standard for US military issue. <br /><br />Heller is now the law of the land. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.VORnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-6587842470762310632009-10-13T21:32:48.564+02:002009-10-13T21:32:48.564+02:00"AztecRed,
if that is the case, then there is..."AztecRed,<br />if that is the case, then there is the process of Amending the Constitution."<br /><br />Even the process of amending relies on popular support.<br /><br />"BTW, AztecRed, I see that you are from Oklahoma City, why not join the rebellion started at the Murrah Federal building if you believe that tyranny exists?<br /><br />Do you support that action?"<br /><br />I don't support that action any more than Barack Obama supports the actions of Bill Ayers.<br /><br />"Question for you, Who decides that a society is tyrannical?"<br /><br />It's not society that becomes tyrannical. It's government that becomes tyrannical.AztecRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027951757285806109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79114521815797637262009-10-13T21:26:53.993+02:002009-10-13T21:26:53.993+02:00BTW, the presumption of innocence also does not re...BTW, the presumption of innocence also does not require that the defendant put up a defence. The case was US V. Miller--Miller did not have the burden of proof.<br /><br />The defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against him.<br /><br />Again, had there have been a personal right to bear arms, Miller would have been entitled to that.<br /><br />If you read my posts, you will find quite a few references to the Collective right pre-1970.<br /><br />The fact that I find <i>Heller</i> to be incorrectly decided, as did the dissent, along with quite a bit of critical law journal articles about this decision shows that this is still a vibrant legal theory.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-69357007364238105622009-10-13T21:14:03.921+02:002009-10-13T21:14:03.921+02:00Civic/Collective right: The right is related to a ...Civic/Collective right: The right is related to a well regulated militia and common defence.<br /><br />Individual right: the right encompasses private purposes: e.g., self-defence. In the case of <i>Heller</i>, the right to own a handgun in the home provided that he registered it.<br /><br />The Civic/Collective right does not preclude a ban on firearms. It also does not preclude the city of Kennesaw, GA from requiring that everyone buy a gun.<br /><br />But, it does remove the Second Amendment from the concept of "gun rights". That means whatever gun rights exist are found in State Constutions, which have loads of examples of individual right language.<br /><br />Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state<br />Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. <br />Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons<br /><br />Although, that could run into other issues (religious aversion to violence).<br /><br />Anyway, <i>Miller</i> is decidely civic/collective in tone with the phrase <i>has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia</i> used in the one quote.<br /><br /><i>Heller</i> on the other hand, found there was a purpose that did not have <i>some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia</i>. That is self-defence in the home.<br /><br />Miller allegedly had his sawed-off shotgun for self-defence. And as one commentator said, he was found shot to death, so his need for a firearm for self-defence was justified. Had the decision related to the firearm rather than a relationship to the common defence, the court would have found for Miller.<br /><br />The fact that Miller was not present doesn't affect the validity (the concept of default judgement).<br /><br />My paraphrase of the holding puts the two paragraphs in order and modernises McReynold's archaic writing.Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90801411716429674412009-10-13T21:11:25.896+02:002009-10-13T21:11:25.896+02:00Laci,
You seem especially adept at ignoring facts...Laci,<br /><br />You seem especially adept at ignoring facts<br /><br /><i>If the case were as you stated it, then the court would have held for Miller as sawed-off shotguns were used in trench warfare.</i><br /><br />There was no defense presented, so there was no one to argue the government contention against sawed off shotguns.Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-68469556312416795562009-10-13T21:10:06.425+02:002009-10-13T21:10:06.425+02:00MikeB:"One thing I've noticed about Mille...MikeB:"One thing I've noticed about Miller is the pro-gun guys say it supports their argument and the gun control guys say the same, citing exactly the same text."<br /><br />That is because Miller is not the end all be all landmark decision that the anti-freedom crowd pretends it to be.<br /><br />Laci. Can you show us anything written prior to the 1970's that uses the collective right farce?<br /><br />"Judges are supposedly bound by precedent. I say supposedly since the Heller majority did not feel bound by Miller's precedent."<br /><br />Miller set no precedent on the individual vs. collective right argument because no one alive in 1939 would ever believe that the 2nd amendment was anything but an individual right.<br /><br />I will agree with you that "Heller was pure partisan politics" though. If otherwise and the dissenters used logic and the law rather than liberal bias, it would have been unanimous instead of 5-4.FatWhiteManhttp://fatwhiteman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-8966229090257312492009-10-13T20:58:52.209+02:002009-10-13T20:58:52.209+02:00Mike W., your analysis of Miller is incorrect.
If...Mike W., your analysis of Miller is incorrect.<br /><br />If the case were as you stated it, then the court would have held for Miller as sawed-off shotguns were used in trench warfare.<br /><br />You also miss the language that I highlighted that specifically says "<b>has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia</b><br /><br />Miller cites to Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)<br /><br /><br /><i> But a prohibition to wear a spear concealed in a cane would in no degree circumscribe the right to bear arms in the defence of the state; for this weapon could in no degree contribute to its defence, and would be worse than useless in an army. And, if, as is above suggested, the wearing arms in defence of the citizens is taken to mean the common defence, the same observations apply. <br /><br /> To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had<br />borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.</i>Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.com