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

Remind me who broke out the word snowflake? Who used obtuse in a veiled insult? Who constantly questions if people are smart enough to comprehend what you say? Do they even speak English? Who tells people they can't have a [legal, medical, physiological, etc] opinion because they are not in the profession?

You don't own it, you play the victim when it's pointed out. Own it? You don't even rent it.

Yawn.......

Exactly.

Thanks, I don't know how much I'll be in and out. Work has happened to slow down a bit. And for various reasons I've had a hard time getting excited for this season so...

Based on what you laid out, it honestly probably comes down to the local... attitudes toward such circumstances, being Texas and all. As a citizen its hard enough dotting all the legal I's and crossing all the legal T's when defending yourself. Defense of a 3rd person makes it even more tricky. Taking shots at someone fleeing? Who may not actually posing a deadly active threat to the public at large in that moment???

Maybe there is some level of recourse civilly. Negligence in a civil court is defined differently than in criminal court, and usually is easier to prove.

IMO if ANY training or class was going to be mandated, it should be a course on your State's statutes regarding self defense. There is a general belief of what qualifies as 'self defense' that most people have that's wrong. Usually its the, if you swing first I can swing back because I'm defending myself, even though I dared you to do it. This may be fine because its late in the 4th quarter, the defense is giving up another game, and we trade punches arguing about Baker because its just a minor incident.

However, when PitDawg and FrankZ meet a dawn, take 10 paces and turn...

you and i talk in PM sometimes, but just letting you know publicly im glad to see you post cause that means you're alive and safe. i dont post all the craziness like that domestically because im paying attention to the war in ukraine, but i seen some of the ambushes LEOs been going through and it sucks. so thats why im glad to see you posting.

anyways, if you were to break down rittenhouse and then this incident (i think you and i agree with rittenhouse, my issue has always been he had no business being there in the first place), could this be an example of why having different standards when it comes to the law across the country be a negative?

i understand local sentiment and culture, but there has to be some sort of nationalize standard we have in this country that clearly defines a line between defense and vigilantism. i'm all for protecting people, in and some cases even property. however, there's a John Wayne aspect of this that is getting out of control when it comes to how we allow individuals to carry and behave with firearms. and not even the big boy guys, just normal side arms like a 9.

Play the victim? Hardly. These jovial back and forths with you is more like comic relief. I feel it's akin to toying with a cat while holding a hand held laser light. I just point it in a different direction and you chase after it. I do however owe you a debt of appreciation. Often times when I'm looking for a little comedy relief I'll watch a stand up routine on one of my streaming services. But you add dimensions that they can never match.

Firstly you help to make it interactive. Something I can't get watching stand up. Secondly there's no monthly service charge! So for those added features, thank you.

so you admit you cannot win a debate on merit and need to resort to trolling. It's a step in the right direction. No need to deny or otherwise respond.

It's you who take those discussions off the rails. Then I break out the laser light, yell here kitty, kitty and off you go. Try again grasshopper.

How is quoting SCOTUS decisions and and explaining how the courts work off topic. But again, you just have to be insulting.

Go back and take a look. I mean if you can actually admit it. Keep chasing that light!

I can admit you can't win a constitutional argument and resort to insults. Like you continue to do.

Amaze me. Try an actual constitutional debate point that is well researched and no just you said it so it must be true.

I really do appreciate that. I'll PM you in a bit to catch up.

When it comes to National 'standards' I think there are Pros and Cons to it. Before that though, when it comes to self defense, pretty much every State's statutes are pretty close to each other to begin with, mostly centering around 'imminence of the threat' and assessing the proportionality of the response. Where you start to see meaningful divergence is in States that require to retreat if possible which often allows you to be judged in hindsight, not by what was done in the moment.

What I Also think most people don't realize is that when a person makes a claim of self defense, the burden is not on them to prove it was self defense. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't, or at least it was not lawful self defense. Does this mean anyone can simply make the claim? Yep. But it also means they are admitting that they used physical force/killed the other person. I agree it is more than disappointing to see someone not held accountable for clearly being reckless, but from what I've seen over the last years since paying attention to different cases nationwide, way too many people are being charged and taken to court when they were very clear cases of self defense. If its a clear case of self defense, DA's shouldn't be changing people and making them have to find an average of $200k for a competent defense. AND because its in front of a jury, there's always a chance they can still get convicted despite the facts. Yet DAs will do this for no other reason than personal political ambition.

I think the Pro to a National 'standard' is in the uniformity. But the uniformity is also the Con. What if that one overarching standard says that when a person breaks into your house at night, you have a legal obligation to jump out of your window instead of confronting the intruder? That every member of your family has to pull a George Costanza at the kids party and run away instead of confronting the intruder?

Or how about the flip side: what if that standard is lowered to mirror what we see in the classic western movies?

And what if WE decide the standard needs to change? Because its too restrictive? too permissive? We'd have to petition Washington D.C. for change, not your State Assembly. I think if you really look at the standards/laws in place, you'll find the problem is really not within that law, but rather the DA's decisions to bring a case or not. I think too often we see a decision we don't like, and we immediately try to indict the System, when we should be indicting the person who made the decision.

Welcome back. It's really good to see you.

Stick around.
Please.


At this address, there are Dawgs who appreciate thoughtful, well-constructed posts. Posts that require effort, focus and commitment.
If I can speak for others who feel the same as I do, this was a pleasure to read.

'Dawg talk' around here is better when you are a part of the discourse.



Hit me on The Private.
We should catch up.

You've been missed.

I just wanted to briefly second your post. The conversations I get the most out of in this forum are the back-and-forth variety. Two or more dawgs talking about an issue that may disagree but look to discuss their views in hopes of growing, finding a mutual understanding, and empathy.

I actually think that is the majority of us. I just wish we could find a way to be louder.

I agree. Far too many cases are taken in to the justice system where as you suggest, it can be a coin flip of sorts, and at minimum a very costly ordeal.

To me it is hard to set "standards". Society isn't the one standing there with a stranger roaming around your home at night, or smashing your car widow while you are sitting in the car. I think one needs to consider why the situation was created in the first place. I think sometimes we only consider end result rather than the cause.

On a larger scale, did the proliferation of firearms crate the crime problem or did the rise in crime create the proliferation?

Finding some court case that agrees with your argument is not a constitutional debate.

Bruen is not "some court case". NY State Rifle and Pistol vs Bruen is controlling precedent for lower courts. That's how our judicial system works. When SCOTUS hands down a ruling it becomes binding in all districts.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

I don't believe we can or would see a national standard for self defense. We don't have one for murder, for instance. Self defense definitions and laws are local and would be considered a state's rights issue.

That said, having national reciprocity on carry permits (if one agrees to permitting and not simple constitutional carry) would make sense. That would not absolve a citizen of one state from following a different states laws on self defense. A Texas citizen would not be able to use lethal for to defend property in Maryland for instance. Much like when you drive to a different state and need to follow their laws, even if you don't like them.

But there is nothing in that SCOTUS opinion that does away with CCW permits. Only that you don't have to have some reason to carry. It this far is limited in its scope.

Supreme Court’s Gun Rights Decision Upends State Restrictions

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that expanded the right to carry firearms outside the home, gun rights activist Andrew Namiki Roberts rushed to the Honolulu Police Department to apply for four permits to carry handguns in public. He was fourth in line, surrounded by excited Hawaii gun owners who felt vindicated in their crusade for greater firearm access.

The high court’s June 23 decision struck down a New York law that required people to show a specific need to carry a firearm in public. And it means similar laws in five other states, including Hawaii, are now unconstitutional. Roberts likely won’t receive his gun permits until the legislature amends state law or the state attorney general issues new guidance, but he is eager to carry a gun outside his home because he is convinced it will make him safer.

“We finally have our Second Amendment rights affirmed,” said Roberts, who is director of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition.

Elated gun rights advocates say the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen has opened the door to overturning many other state gun restrictions.

Gun safety advocates, however, emphasize that the court’s ruling was limited in scope and still allows states to regulate types of firearms, where people can carry firearms and the permitting process, including requirements for background checks and training. Democratic lawmakers in some of the states affected by the Supreme Court decision already have passed new firearm restrictions that they hope will survive judicial scrutiny.

The New York law, which had been on the books for more than a century, required residents to demonstrate a “proper cause” for carrying a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Not only did the court strike down this law, finding it was applied unevenly, but it also established a new legal test. Gun laws now must be judged based on the “text, history and tradition” of the Second Amendment: What did the amendment mean to the founders, where did they think the right to bear arms originated, and how did they apply it?

In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment often has been treated like a second-class right.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he wrote.

The ruling fundamentally changes the legal landscape for gun laws, said Hannah Hill, director of research and policy at the National Foundation for Gun Rights, which filed a brief in the case. Gun rights advocates now can “go on the offense,” Hill said. She hopes the “text, history and tradition” test eventually will lead to a day when people in every state can carry firearms without a permit.

“This is going to have massive implications,” Hill said. “It’s a radical test, and if applied accurately it will have radical results. A lot of gun laws will not be able to withstand Second Amendment scrutiny.”

This is the first major gun case taken up by the Supreme Court since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008, in which the court established that Americans have the right to keep guns in their homes. The court, however, made it clear in that ruling that states could regulate gun ownership and where people could carry guns.

Gun rights advocates’ excitement over this latest ruling is justified, said Darrell Miller, a professor at Duke University School of Law. There will be a wave of new litigation, he said.

“We can fully expect that gun rights advocates will use the majority opinion and reasoning to challenge not just licensing rules, but every single regulation on the book without clear historical backing,” Miller said.

Gun safety advocates argue the ruling in the New York case will exacerbate the epidemic of gun violence in the United States—a crisis in full view this week when a man killed seven people and injured more than 30 at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, an affluent suburb north of Chicago.

After Monday’s shooting, Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker called gun violence a “uniquely American plague,” and rejected the notion that the right to own and carry high-powered weapons has historical backing.

“Our founders carried muskets, not assault weapons,” Pritzker said, “and I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine, or that that is more important than the right of the people who attended this parade today to live.”

When gun safety advocate and lawyer Josh Horwitz first saw the Supreme Court decision, he felt “pure outrage.” Horwitz, the co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University, called the “text, history and tradition” test unworkable and unnecessary. The court, he said, could have struck down New York’s law without inventing a test that invites a “deluge of litigation.”

“It just smacked of no sound reason,” Horwitz said. “Are courts going to have to employ historians now? Are the rules of the road governed exclusively by history from 1791? What happened is just the worst possible outcome.”

In California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, the Supreme Court’s decision invalidates laws requiring permit applicants to prove they have a special need to carry a concealed firearm.

However, Democratic lawmakers in those states say the ruling leaves them room to tighten laws governing the sorts of firearms and ammunition people can use and where people can carry those guns.

Just over a week after the ruling, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a Democratic-backed measure into law that, among other things, establishes a strict process to obtain a concealed carry permit and restricts the locations where people can carry firearms, including in government buildings and schools. Hochul, a Democrat, called the Supreme Court decision “a monumental setback.”
Investigators work the scene of a shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., Monday, May 16, 2022.
Stateline Story June 27, 2022
States Want to Make it Easier to Use Red Flag Laws

It was important for the state legislature and governor to react quickly and enact measures to clarify where residents could carry firearms in public, said Sherry Levin Wallach, the president of the New York State Bar Association.

“We are lucky that we are in a state that was able and ready to respond in a way to fill the gaps that were created by the decision,” she said. “There was concern that people would misunderstand it and would carry a concealed weapon, thinking they didn’t need to apply for a permit.”

On Tuesday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, also signed new gun restrictions into law, including a requirement that people undergo training before receiving a permit. The measures also require new residents to register firearms they bought out of state.

With these fast-moving developments, gun rights groups need to keep their members updated with changes to state law, said Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. Shortly after the Supreme Court decision, the gun rights group published a guide on its website that outlines new state gun regulations and how to apply for a concealed carry permit in the Garden State. Bach said he wanted to ensure the “good guys” remain law-abiding gun owners.

“It’s a sea change in New Jersey,” he said.

Following its landmark ruling on New York, the Supreme Court also ordered lower courts to revisit rulings that upheld laws in states such as Hawaii and Maryland, including bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, using its new “text, history and tradition” framework.

Mark Pennak, president of gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue, argues that many gun restrictions in his state won’t pass the new standard set by the high court. There will be countless new challenges to “onerous” state gun laws nationwide, he said, including laws that limit where people can carry firearms.

“This is going to have enormous ripple effects,” Pennak said. “We feel vindicated by this because the Supreme Court has adopted the same analysis that we have been urging for years.”

On Tuesday, Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan eased his state’s licensing restrictions for carrying a concealed firearm, saying he was acting in line with the Supreme Court’s decision.

But Hawaii state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat who has authored much of the gun safety legislation enacted by his state in recent years, is confident the high court’s ruling leaves room for lawmakers to regulate gun ownership. He is still considering his next legislative move.

“If we’re going to have to let you carry in public, we want to make sure you’re the kind of person we want to be carrying a gun in public,” he said.

Brandon Stracener, a senior research fellow at the California Constitution Center at the University of California, Berkeley, said he doesn’t think the Supreme Court will pick apart state bans on high-capacity magazines or specific styles of firearms. Indeed, in a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the Bruen decision only addressed New York-style limits on who can receive a concealed carry permit.

“I don’t think anybody can be sure how this will shape up,” Stracener said. “The sky is not falling, but who knows. This is where the labs of democracy and the court system will experiment.”
Pistols traded in by people during the annual gun buy-back event hosted by United Playaz are seen on a table in San Francisco, California, United States on December 14, 2019
Stateline Story October 18, 2021

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ights-decision-upends-state-restrictions

Will it open the door for further cases that may eventually accomplish what you're speaking of? Most likely. But it didn't do what you're claiming it does. All it actually did was strike down the requirement to have a specific need to carry a firearm.

There is nothing in the decision to uphold permits in the face of one step text history and tradition. The court said that "current shall issue schemes may be constitutional" They did not green flag them, they just didn't get rid of them now.

Bruen does 2 concrete things.
1) Removes the idea anyone needs to show the government they have a special need to exercise the right. That include subjective tests such as "good cause".
2) Sets the standard of review from a two step process that has been abused to a one step process. In the two step process strict scrutiny was the standard and most of the time intermediate was used. That is no more.

The third thing that the decision does is warn states. Their laws "may be constitutional", restrictions must be narrowly tailored. The path to Bruen is a layered approach with Caetano, McDonald and the Hellers. I don't think SCOTUS is going to give up too much more in the way of shenanigans before states no longer can infringe at all.

One thing:


This is incorrect though a perfect example of how the story gains legitimacy through retelling and people willing to believe it. Hogan did not ease the licensing restrictions. The Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest in the state) released a, at the time, unpublished opinion that struck down "good and substantial" in the face of Bruen. Hogan took the heat from the rabid liberals but it was not his decision. The unpublished decision has since been published. Politicking was done and people buy it.

So the case you cited when we were talking about gun training had nothing to do with making gun training unconstitutional or did away with a state making that a legal requirement. It did not impact gun training as "the law of the land" or anything having to do with abolishing it. The only thing it warned states about was that them requiring a special need for someone to carry a weapon may be unconstitutional. The ruling was very limited in its scope.

Now as for what you think that may mean moving forward and how you think it may impact such laws moving forward is certainly up to you. But you cited a case and emphatically defended it when it had nothing to do with restricting a states right to require gun training to acquire a CCW.

The case I quoted set the standard of review for ALL second amendment issues in the US.

This takes time, but we are already seeing injunctions in regards to new laws in NY state. What it takes for training specifically is to have it challenged under the new review standards.

Bruen is the law of the land, but like every other SCOTUS decision it takes time for challenges to invalidate unconstitutional laws. That does not make mandatory training constitutional, nor does it make it effective.

So the case had no current baring on gun training being required to carry a firearm. It's simply conjecture on your part that it may do so at some point in the future. Got it.

Specifically no, but it does have baring on every single restriction on second amendment rights.




The writing is on the wall. I do not need mandatory training for free speech, I should not need it to keep and bear arms. The court has determined it, the states need to come to heel or they will regret it.

Come collect them

And see, that's the problem here. I'm a supporter of the second amendment. I don't believe in banning what is labeled assault weapons. Actually I agree with the ruling in this case. Nobody should have to come up with some special reason why they need to carry a weapon. I believe anyone who has not been convicted of a felony be allowed to purchase a firearm. I believe anyone who completes a basic safety course should be able to carry a weapon. I'm not his enemy on this topic.

But he seems to believe that a ruling, which is very limited in its scope, somehow will do away with requiring basic safety courses to carry a weapon in public. When in fact the case and language suggests none of that. What he seems to be doing is trying to create an enemy where none exists.

I was being sarcastic.

After Bruen the four cases that were being held were GVRed back to the circuits. This is not as narrow as you want to believe.

The new standard is set. Text history and tradition. Deny it, ignore, don't believe it but it is the standard and has already been used in cases not about "good cause"

I'm sure you wish and hope it's not that narrow. I don't believe it's as all encompassing as you hope it is either.

That is because you continue to refuse to read the decision.

The court has stated this is the standard of review. They couldn't much more clear.

You mean historic as in when the constitution was written almost every American carried a gun and hunted and now they don't? You are doing nothing more than prognosticating future cases which hold zero bearing on this case. Somehow you believe that you have the ability to diagnose and predict what this ruling will mean in the future. You don't.

Continue to spin it hown you like. The court sent 4 cases back to the circuits and said "see Bruen". They were very clear.

Me using spin? How many justices wrote what you're quoting? You do realize there are nine justices and not one, correct? BTW, did any of those cases do away with CCW training?

Yes spin.

There are 9 justices. They took a vote. 6-3. That is how it works. Every single one of the 6 also joined the majority opinion.

No they didnt talk abotbtraining specifically, but the cases were not just "good cause" arguments. Weapons bans, open carry, mag limits. The new standard is set. Text, history and tradition is the new standard.

A challenge to training would fail the new standard.

So none of the rulings had anything to do with training being required in order to carry in public. I'm certainly glad you feel you are qualified to interpret SCOTUS decisions and how they will impact things that aren't even mentioned. Most people have to go through extensive education and years of practice before they are considered constitutional lawyers. Glad you didn't have to do anything of the kind to predict the future of the court rulings. With having such powers to predict the future I think you should strongly consider starting your own 1-800 psychic hotline.

The vote they took pertained to the case at hand. Not all of the wording in the decision. I happen to agree with their decision. But you are the one doing the spinning here. Their votes were in agreement with there not being a special reason needed to carry a firearm. That's what the case was about.

Keep at the spin.

They voted 6-3. Once the majority was decided Roberts chose Thomas to write the majority opinion (which you still haven't read). All 6 justices in the majority joined the opinion. If a justice in the majority had not concurred with the opinion they are free to write their own opinion. That is how SCOTUS works and it is binding.

Once they decided this, they granted, vacated and remanded held cases. Those cases were other questions, questions not covered in Bruen. When the remand happened they said "see Bruen". Continuing to focus on the idea that they didn't specifically say the words you needed them to say has no bearing.

Text, history and tradition. That is the benchmark. They don't need to cover every specific item. They covered it all in the benchmark for 2A is text, history and tradition. It is what they said, it is what they meant.

So no state nor case before the SCOTUS involved gun training being required to carry a weapon has been repealed or overturned as you keep pontificating . I got it.

Not yet. That does not change what the majority decided.

Bruen is already being cited for injuctions. Quitbwith using pedantic arguments to gaslight. Text, history and tradition is the new standard. Training requirements are small potatoes compared to other things working now. Mandatory training still does not meet the standard and would not hold up in court.

So nothing has changed in regards to CCW permits in any state and your claim is I'm the one who is gaslighting? You still seem to think you're a constitutional law expert. You're not. Let me know when your prognistications actually come to fruition. Until then you just keep claiming you know more than you actually do.

Yes things have changed. The entire nation is now shall issue. NY is trying to mitigate that with stupid laws CCIA and they have injunction and TRO in place.

Yes things are changing, it is not immediate. Text history and tradition is the new standard. Read the decision.