DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Why We Need a Firearms Ban

Once again you are making future prognostication when you have no actual education in constitutional law. Let me once again remind you what the case was about. It was about a state requiring someone prove a special need to carry a firearm. Nothing more and nothing less. I still think with your clear cut predictions of the future you should have your own 1-800 psychic hotline. Maybe for gun rights activists only?

So I am not an attorney and I can't be right and you are all knowing without reading the decision.

Gee when I put it like that you make no sense what so ever.

I'd like to know pits level of education in constitutional law is.

I've asked for qualifications. We just get insults and deflection. Just par for the course, just par for the course.

constitutional law is brutal

There are less than 50,000 attorneys/people who are educated in it.

You don't have to be an expert to understand what the case was based on. Nor do you have to be an expert to know that the SCOTUS only takes on a small percentage of cases that are presented to them. It's not hard to know that of about 7000 cases presented to them each year, they only accept and decide on between 100-1250 of them.

I'm not the one predicting not only that they will hear state CCW cases, but how they will decide. Try again Beavis.

You might wish to ask the qualifications of the one who is.

I'm not the one predicting that the SCOTUS will actually make CCW cases something they'll accept to rule on, but how they will rule. Another swing and a miss by both you and your dingleberry.

You are the one denying the scope of a decision without reading it, viz you are predicting the scope to be limited to only one issue without expertise or research.

Hide behind insult and gaslighting in your willful ignorance. You really are the one missing here.

What were your expertise in this since you are so concerned? Yeah didn't think so.

And you claim to know whether I read the decision too. My you think you have such great insight. I see you continue to dodge every point I made. Why do you think out of over 7k cases a year presented to the SCOTUS that they will take up CCW cases as one of the most important cases in the less than 200 a year they decide on?

You are making claims about futuire SCOTUS decisions about CCW requirements that the odds say is very remote that will ever come before them. You've gotten beyond ridiculous.

I have pointed out several times you have not read it, you never disagree. Don't try to claim there is no evidence that you haven't.

The standard is now Text, History and Tradition. Fail and deflect all you like, that is what SCOTUS has decreed. There is no ambiguity in that. You would understand that if you read the decision, or even read the quotes direct from it that I have so thoughtfully posted for you.

The standard has been set. Text, history and tradition is the standard. Trying to deflect and distract with "7000 cases a year" does not change that they have set the standard though this case.

A standard that lower courts may or may not see as an infringement such as you do. I have read your quotes and have seen nothing in them that says gun training can not be required. Pointing out the fact that 7k cases a year are requested to be heard by the SCOTUS and less than 200 are heard is not a deflection, it's a statistical fact. It's you who try to skirt around that issue. So far the SCOTUS hasn't chosen to hear any case regarding gun training being required to carry a firearm and I doubt they will. It's not some huge infringement like you think it is. It's some low hanging fruit you have decided to latch onto.

The cases do not go straight to SCOTUS. Lower courts hear the cases first then courts above them, etc. Once that happens the SCOTUS petitions happen. It is all a lengthy process, but you seem to think lower courts will just completely disregard the standard set because SCOTUS only hears a small number of cases.

There is also injunctive relief that happens, that doesn't go through the standard process of appeals and goes straight to SCOTUS. We aren't to that point. This is a long process but SCOTUS has set the standard, and you keep dancing around that standard. That standard does not just apply to the limited scope you want to believe it does, they were clear. All cases implicating the right to keep and bear arms are to use the new standard. That part was clear in what Thomas wrote, and what the majority joined.

There is already a case that does involve training in the lower courts. There are lots of cases citing the new standard. Cases remanded were told, specifically, to see Bruen for the standard. Whether a lower court judge will use your level of mental gymnastics to deny the standard exists remains to be seen, but that is why there are levels to the system. I don't doubt if NY loses in the circuit court they will appeal upwards. That is the way of these things.

I'm not dancing around anything. If all judges read these decisions in the same way and felt it applied in the same conditions such cases would never work their way back up to the SCOTUS. What's funny is you openly admit things work exactly as I have described they do yet insist that your word is the final say in which CCW classes will be denied to the states. Taking a CCW course does not deter you from owning firearms or carrying them. That's where the mental gymnastics exist on your part. And the Bruen case certainly does not say that.

Don't try to gas light that I have agreed with you. I have explained how things work because you insist "SCOTUS never said <blah blah blah>". SCOTUS doesn't have to make an exhaustive list. They said the entire category uses the standard. That means, magazine limits, gun bans and yes, training. Everything under consideration needs to follow that standard.

You tell your children "don't leave the yard" you don't say "you can't go to the park, the grocery store, the mall..." You make a blanket declaration. Text, history and tradition. read it and you would see it.

The case in front of them wasn't "the entire category". That's a figment of your imagination. I don't have the imagination it takes to try and pretend that this single ruling over a case that in no way pertains to CCW classes somehow sets some standard for everything that pertains to future firearms cases like you have done. I'm not that presumptuous and self righteous enough to make such a all encompassing statement.

As I have quoted you the required text from the decision I won't do it again as it is obvious you have no interest in reading it.

They did not limit the scope of the decision solely to the question of good cause. Had they done that Thomas would not have had to write nearly as many pages, a single page would have been sufficient.

They did indeed set the standard as I have said. If you can go to the decision and find where they limit text, history and tradition to just "good cause" please do so. I'll wait here for your return with the details. You won't find them and you will continue to gaslight that you have any clue on what was said, how it was said and why it was said. You seem to have less understanding of the judicial process than I have thought, which to be honest my expectations were pretty low to start with. Your continued adherence to you said it arguments in the face of actual quotes from the decision is ludicrous.

And I'll wait for your prognostications to actually become a reality. Something you most assuredly feel you're qualified to predict. Until then your assertions are meaningless.

I wonder why in the cases that have moved in courts since Bruen no one has thought to argue the "it only applies to good cause arguments" approach. Every single defendant is trying to fit their infringements into a history, text and tradition frame. You should call them all and let them know your brilliant interpretation of the decision you didn't read. You could be a hero to them.

Let me know when any case involves CCW permit training. As you have openly admitted, no cases of that sort have been determined in the court system. Until then all you're doing is claiming you understand constitutional law. News flash. You don't. Yet you keep pretending you have some ability to see into the future. I don't need to call anyone. It's you that seem to know what they will do. Maybe you should call them. Thus far, since no cases regarding CCW training course requirements have been tried, you have no basis if fact to base your opinion on. Yes, opinion.

No cases have been determined yet, they are working there way though court. You know what didn't happen? "History, text and tradition don't apply because Bruen is limited to good cause." The state is trying to argue a history of mandated training.


Let me know when you get around to actually reading Bruen.

Aspiring Country Singer Sentenced To Nearly A Year Probation For Shooting Homeless Man

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/aspiring-country-singer-sentenced-nearly-182022694.html


Frank, i do this, am i getting a year probation?

I suppose it would depend on what your attorney can and cannot prove and what the judge ultimately does. There are lots of people that do bad things and get reduced sentences.

That isn't a 2A issue, it is a justice system issue.

I always advocate that people that harm others pay for that. I am all for self defense, but you cannot be the aggressor and then claim self defense. MD requires you to retreat if safe to do so, and I am not entirely on board with that, but you can't be an idiot then shoot someone and claim self defense, duty to retreat of stand your ground.

Good luck with that.