Frank where you at? come look at this:

A 100-person fistfight broke out at a restaurant in a Tokyo skyscraper when a gang met to celebrate a member getting out of prison: reports

https://www.yahoo.com/news/100-person-fistfight-broke-restaurant-090743522.html

A massive fistfight involving around 100 people broke out at a French restaurant in Tokyo on Sunday evening, Japanese media reported.

The customers booked out the entirety of a contemporary French restaurant called Sunshine Cruise Cruise on the 58th floor of the Sunshine 60, a skyscraper in the Ikebukuro district, Kyodo News reported. The fight appeared to involve members of a gang called the Chinese Dragon, per Kyodo News, which cited an unnamed source linked to the investigation.

The 100 people had gathered to celebrate one of the gang members getting out of prison, the Asahi Shimbun reported, also citing an unnamed source.

Police were notified about the brawl at around 6:30 p.m. on Sunday after restaurant staff made an emergency call, per the Asahi Shimbun. Most of the diners involved in the brawl quickly left the premises, and it's unclear how many people remained when the Tokyo police arrived.

One man who remained at the restaurant was taken to hospital with a minor head injury, the Asahi Shimbun reported.

Videos posted to Twitter on Sunday showed a fleet of emergency vehicles arriving outside the Sunshine 60 skyscraper.

Some videos on Twitter also showed a crowd of policemen gathered outside the Sunshine Cruise Cruise restaurant.

A staff member at Sunshine Cruise Cruise who responded to a call from Insider said she was unable to confirm or comment on the incident, citing an ongoing police investigation.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Police told Kyodo News that it found broken beer bottles and glasses at the restaurant and that it's investigating a case of suspected property damage. The Tokyo police department did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment through Japan's Foreign Press Center.

The Chinese Dragon gang maintains links to Japanese crime syndicates but is not considered an established criminal organization, per Kyodo News.

Its ranks are widely believed to consist of the descendants of Japanese orphans who were left in China during Japan's chaotic pullout from the country at the end of World War II. Many of these descendants later returned to Japan.

_____________


aye here we go!!! no guns, just a straight up brawl. hell, add swords in there if we want. i rather the streets settle things like this over guns.

I'm right here. So I have a couple of different replies in mind:

1) You've convinced me, we should remove all guns from public possession and only let the military and police have them. We are better as subjects with basic privileges instead of citizens with rights.

2) If the Japanese were allowed to own firearms them might hae been more reluctant about attacking each other not knowing who might be armed.

I'm sure you can realize the sarcasm in both of those replies.

Too bad he was holding a Fudd gun.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man a statistic.

An armed man is a citizen. Unarmed innocent children are statistics of heavily armed citizens.

It’s been pried away long ago.

Like clockwork, go for the "innocent children". Same old, same old.

Bro, you're going about this the wrong way.

Americans can't be told what to do. Americans are always outraged when there is a threat of something being taken away. If we outlawed guns, everyone would be armed to the teeth in two weeks flat.

You have to use reverse psychology...

Outlaw fist fighting.

How about heavily armed criminals. Citizens do not commit crimes they protect themselves and others from criminals. Thus the need for guns!

Swish, I agree, unfortunately you can't put that genie back in the bottle with more guns than people in America.

Playing devil's advocate:

1) We are better as living subjects with basic privileges instead of dead citizens with rights.

2) Fighting is human nature. Show me any time in history when people did not attack each other over differences. Let's at least keep it realistic.

Guns are here to stay. But we do need laws to tighten restrictions and a better program for getting guns off the streets. What those would look like, I have no clue.

Plus, let's be real... there are something like 5 guns per American. You are not getting rid of guns.

guns are illegal to discharge in urban areas and are the cause of 80%+ gun deaths.

Making guns illegal won't change that - they are already illegal to shoot.

In the country, you will never be able to stop us from using them. They are tools that are required.

There is a little over 1 gun per American. 2017 estimate from Wikipedia info says there are estimated to be 393,347,000 guns on the street in the US, with a population of326,474,000. So about 1.2 guns per person. The glaring number to me is that of the 393,347,000 guns on the street, only 1,073,743 are registered. This means there are 392,273,257 unregistered guns on the street. I would think requiring all guns to be registered, making it criminal to own an unregistered weapon, would go a long way toward reducing gun violence. But again, how do you enforce it?

EDIT: Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

I find it hard to believe less than 1.1 million are registered.

there were 39 million guns purchased last year alone and 411 million purchased since 1998
https://247wallst.com/consumer-prod...ns-last-year-here-is-each-states-figure/

What else is being severely understated is what happened to guns that are still in existence which were produced from 1900-1998...these guns did not disappear and more than likely, 60% of these are still owned by Americans and in working condition.

Round math... If we take 5 million guns made a year and multiply that there are 500 million guns that are unaccounted for from 1900-1998.
That would mean that about 300 million of those 500 million are still around and are in working condition.


if that is the case, there are probably closer to 700 million guns that are owned by Americans not 393 million.

You never struck me as the prefer to live with the boot on your neck instead as a free man kind of person.

He wants Commies to wear the boot.

It would take a might small brain to reach that conclusion from what I posted unless English is not your first language.

See what I mean FrankZ... mighty small indeed.

Stop talking about your pinky. Thats TMI

LAME.

And stop showing it to FrankZ.

and down the lame rabbit hole, we go...

It would take a mighty small brain to fall for your insipid assertion that living without freedom is preferable.

This thread is the prime example of why there's no room for middle ground these days. We all have the right to own firearms. That should never be changed. What separates criminals from law abiding citizens is the fact that law abiding citizens, in theory, do the right and responsible thing. Which one would think should include a safety course in the handling, storing and firing of firearms. You know, being responsible. To me there's a difference between a person who believes in doing the responsible thing and a gun nut. I know people who have neither the temperament nor are responsible enough to be walking around carrying a firearm, yet they are. Thank goodness there were requirements for them to at least take a course in how to handle a weapon.

In the event one needs to use a firearm in the case of defending themselves we should at least be sure those handling those forearms know what the hell they're doing. Even law enforcement often misses their target and they are proficiently trained in handling a firearm.

I think handguns should be illegal without a special permit. You can't use them for hunting.

Incorrect.

I recently took the state mandated 16 hour course for a wear and carry permit. Coming out of 16 hours of training I learned that if you use a MD permit to get the PA non resident permit and you let the MD permit lapse PA will issue a felony warrant for your arrest unless you return your PA permit first. I also learned the instructors hate open carry with religious zeal.

Neither one of those things was worth the $350 and 16 hours of my time. State minimum training requirements are a joke. When there is a mandated minimum that's about all you are going to get.

BTW, I was 25/25 on the shooting qualification. It is, however, so easy no one failed it. NO ONE.

When I originally got my ccl, 8 hours of class time. (basically going over different types of handguns, etc. Which I knew), Then range time.

Time to shoot. No one stepped up. I did. I was told you need to put 5 bullets on target. (courtesy of the revolver shooters - just 6 shots). Bam bam bam bam bam bam - I was only allowed 6 shots in my semi auto.

All hits, at 7 yards.

Instructor came over and said "you need to slow down." Why? They all hit in an area the size of a paper plate.

A lot of instructors suffer from being gun store guys.



There's been an onslaught here in MD since June. Some of the instructors are just wrong on so many thing:

• You can only carry the gun you qualify with: not correct here, but NJ seems to be trying this
• Minimum caliber for carry allowed by law is .380: incorrect, there is nothing mentioned
• You can only carry 10 round magazines:In MD sale, transfer or manufacture of ammunition feeding devices over 10 rounds is illegal, possession is not. There is an add on charge for use of a > 10 round magazine in a crime of violence as well.
• You have to use 9mm or larger to qualify because anything less isn't useful for self defense: There is not a caliber made I want to be shot with. Placement is pretty important in stopping the threat regardless of caliber.

The list could go on and on. Mandatory training is a waste of time and is unconstitutional.

To add to that, I have been looking for some additional training but everyone is booked up with the mandatory training. I am thinking it will be after the first of the year before trainers start holding other classes.

I won't go into my additional training.

You know I am curious now. Did you get that wet spaghetti as a deadly weapon class?

I don't know what that means.

Just making a joke.

Sadly people are talking about themselves who do already know how to handle a firearm. A permit isn't about "you". It's about all the people who buy and wish to carry a firearm who have no idea what they're doing so everyone else is at least somewhat safer.

https://munitionsgroup.com/gun-laws-ohio/#:~:text=Hunters%20possessing%20a%20valid%20concealed,on%20their%20person%20while%20hunting.

Hunters possessing a valid concealed handgun license may carry their concealed handgun while hunting, but they may not use said handgun to shoot, shoot at, or kill any wild animal. Hunters without a concealed handgun license may not carry or conceal a handgun on their person while hunting.

And it is about people who think thy are qualified to define what other people know and don't know.

What's you qualifications on this? Please, a resume with references so we understand how you know what qualifications other people may posses.

Some history for you to ignore when you make your inevitable snarky remarks that try and belittle people.

In MD there was a 4 hour class required before issuance of the W&C permit. When the MDGA realized they might lose their "good ad substantial" reason clause the upped it to 16 hours. They allowed for military paper work (DD-214) to suffice and an exemption to training. Keep in mind the military does not train anyone on MD law (this is a required topic in the class) nor do they train every member with arms that are part of a W&C permit. My niece qualified with an M4. She will likely never touch a firearm in service again, though she owns them.

The DD-214 was not "common sense" or that those folks are "highly trained". They balked and screamed and they vote. It was a simple political decision.

Minimum training course and qualifications are feel good measure to be used as barriers to the exercise of a right. If you think people doing the minimum because of requirement are safer than people who voluntarily seek out training you are just wrong. There are now 25 states that have permitless carry. Doom and gloom is not happening. TN is one of them. Did you go to the class or do you use the exemption? Are you refreshing your training? How often? It is a active skill, those don't get better without practice.

TL;DR You are again being arrogant and thinking you have some ability to judge people without having a clue.

As I said, incorrect.

From page 9 of the link I will provide: "Handgun: With a 5-inch minimum length barrel,
using straight-walled cartridges .357 caliber or
larger. The barrel is measured from the front of
the cylinder or chamber to the end of the barrel." (for deer)

Link: https://ohiodnr.gov/static/document...d%20Trapping%20Regulations%20ENGLISH.pdf

Straight from the state.

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-eating-old-pasta-and-rice-can-kill-you

If only we approached gun rights in the same manner as voting rights.

I've never had to attend 16 hours of training and being fingerprinted to vote.

Or stand in line with no water provided while you wait.

Point is that silliness exists.

You chose to get a wear and carry permit.

well, I was wrong.

However, I don't know many hunters using 1 handgun to hunt deer at 25 yards or less. Especially when a treestand is usually about 8-10 yards up.

To be effective, they would have to be running around on silent COD style.

I don't care how many you know. You said "you can't be used for hunting." That was incorrrect. That's why I said "incorrect".

I've proven my point. How many people you know that use hand guns is irrelevant. Know the laws and rules, or don't speak about them.

Handguns ARE legal (.357 or larger, with 5" barrels or longer). Bow, compound, straight, or crossbow. Shotgun, with slugs. Rifles - only straight walled cartridges.

You WERE wrong, yet you try the "I don't know many....". Oh, a 357, or larger, is not limited to 25 yds or less, by the way.

correct. I said I was wrong.

I can't wait to see someone running around with a Smith & Wesson S&W500™ S&W .500 Magnum® Revolver

feel free to watch at the 3:51 mark

[video:youtube][/video]

So much wrong with your video.

First, it's a 4" barrel.

Second, he's shooting a hollow point, or, as he calls it, an "expander".

For hunting, 4" barrel is illegal. Needs to be 5" or more.
Second, hollow points are illegal for hunting deer.
Third, this is a video of shooting, not hunting.

Have you ever seen what a 357 with a scope is capable of (in the right hands)? No, you haven't. Thanks for playing.

Heck, in Florida, you don't even need a permit to open carry if you hunting or fishing, and/or on your way to or from said hunting/fishing adventure.

2) 790.25(3) - “Lawful use” authorizes the conceal carry and open carry of firearms while fishing, hunting or camping, or while going to or returning from fishing, hunting or camping.


Wild west, shootouts every day at high noon, downtown.

Classes before you get your voters card might not be a bad idea, better educate voters. Normally I would say this is not a good idea, but with the mis-information and lack of honest, fact based reporting anymore, it almost seems necessary.

That isn't true. I have gone hog hunting in Alabama with a side arm many times. Many people do. Actually, they work better because much of the time you are in heavy brush. Long guns in heavy brush aren't good options.

Why do you insist on being so obtuse? Are you even trying to make some lame claim that everyone who buys a firearm is familiar with handling, storing and firing a weapon? To believe such a thing is naive at best and just trying to make a dumb statement with no basis in truth at worse to instigate trouble. Do you even live among our society? Do you have any idea how many irresponsible people there are that surround you? It appears not.

I certainly think there should be exemptions for veterans and active military who we know have had firearms training. But otherwise pretending that everyone who buys a firearm knows how to handle it defies common sense.



Now consider the number of people who purchase firearms. Not everyone grew up firing weapons or handling weapons. Not everyone grew up hunting. Not even close. Those people are purchasing firearms. They need to have a clue what they're doing.

The idea of "Just buy a gun at the gun shop, walk outside the shop and load up and strap on a pistol" is stupid.

Why do you continue to try and spin and change what I have said?

I have never said that people shouldn't get training. Not once. I have advocated they do.

State mandated training is an arbitrary barrier to the exercise of a right. It is unconstitutional.



Yes, people should get training. Do I need to say it again? I have said it so many times, you ignore it. Mandated training is still, and always will be, designed to be an arbitrary barrier. A right delayed is a right denied.

In regards to military exemption. My sweetie's ex husband was in the Navy. He was an officer and an attorney. He never touched a firearm during his entire career. He is exempt from training because of his military training, which doesn't exist. That is what common sense is. It is a facade, a sham, a sweet nothing whispered in your ear to make you sleep better. Nothing more.

Once again you seem to think that the society we live in means people will get "voluntary training". That's very naive. Like I stated earlier, it's an all or nothing proposition in the world we live in. Common sense and middle ground are no longer a part of the conversation. Either nobody should be "required" to get training or guns should be outlawed.

"Mah rights" is not an excuse to have some accountability and to demand a small amount of responsibility when walking around in public carrying a firearm.

And once again you seem to the the government mandates are there to help. States use mandates to deny. Look at what NY is trying to pivot to. Or NJ, or HI. I am expecting a lot of nonsense out of MD this session.

Rights are rights whether you like them or not. It isn't about some backwoods hick "muh rights" straw argument. People have a very real right to have means to protect their own life. The most efficient tool to do that is firearms. You are naive to think that denying people their rights to self defense due to arbitrary and capricious mandates is anything more than politicians pandering to a base and trying to make themselves, and their donors, feel safer.

Minimum training produces minimum results. The 16 hours I sat in did not have a test at the end. There is no way to ensure anyone learned anything. You are naive to think that people who are forced to do an activity will do it with the same vigor and attention that those doing it voluntarily would do. The shooting requirement was the only objective bit, and it was stated several times before attempted "it is designed for success, everyone in this class will pass it". You could do it with your eyes closed and come close to passing. Mandatory requires like this are barriers to the exercise of a right. They are unconstitutional. I'd rather the "yahoos" you think you are better than have guns then see anyone denied their right to self defense.

Minimum training produces a threshold all must meet. You're just using excuses to circumvent that people have some ability to handle firearms. With rights come responsibility. You're all about the rights without any of the responsibility. Your argument is reckless and you use the constitution as an excuse for it.

Mandated minimums are used as a barrier to exercise of a right. Go look at what NY is proposing as "common sense".

You again try to spin what I have said. People seeking training IS them being responsible. I never once said they should not get training. Please show me where I have said people should not be responsible.

The problem is hoping, thinking and promoting that people get training won't insure that people do. So I certainly didn't mean to twist what you were saying. However what you promote leaves the door open for people not to get that training. Believe me, I'm not saying there are certain states that go too far. But then we get back to the issue of states rights. While I'm certainly not a fan of the extremes some states go to, I can't say that I'm for states rights and then pick and choose. I'm also not saying states don't have the right to allow concealed carry without a permit. Though I'm also not a fan of that either.

I'm not some anti gun nut. I own several firearms. I grew up hunting and target shooting. I know that you too are an avid shooter as well as arch who hunts and target shoots. I have no reason to doubt that is true. I think it would be safe to say that none of us learned anything by taking a CCW course. I know I didn't. But that won't account for the people who need it.

Speaking of barriers. The lack of mandated CCW permits creates a barrier to insure we don't have possibly millions of people walking around carrying a loaded weapon designed to kill people with no idea how to handle it. And no, before you get the idea I'm saying you can't hunt with a revolver that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's very impractical to conceal a revolver you would use to hunt with due to its size and bulkiness. I know I'm not going to be lugging around a Ruger Redhawk for daily protection and I don't know anyone who does. You see, I think everyone who is not a convicted felon has the right to purchase a firearm. The problem becomes when and if they wish to carry that firearm in public. You see that as some barrier to your rights. I see it as a matter of everyone having at least some measure to help insure public safety.

And yes, it's purely anecdotal but I do know two people that fall under exactly what I'm describing. People who went out and bought a gun with the intent to carry that gun who had never fired a gun. No idea what they were doing with a weapon. I'm certainly glad they were required to take that class. I highly doubt they would have gone to that measure just because you promote that they do.

I also feel that the biggest single weapon the left has in trying to infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights are opinions such as yours that allows for no basic training to carry a firearm. It's an easy, common sense measure to show that those who promote the 2nd amendment support at least some safety be exercised.

I don't think we're ever going to see this the same way.

You must not get out much during hunting season. These are a fairly common site then.

Keep in mind here the second amendment should bar governments from infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms. The fourteenth amendment ensures this right is incorporated to the states as well. States rights are great and wonderful, but we cannot lose sight of individual rights as well. Freedom and liberty was never meant to be safe and cuddly. People exercising their rights can be messy. I'd rather err on the side of freedom and liberty than curtailing that in the false sense of safety. Once you allow governments to dictate access to a right, it is only a matter of how far they will go to remove that right all together.



I never said you were anti-gun. Frankly I am not a "gun nut" either. I enjoy shooting, I believe in being prepared to defend myself but I don't budget a portion of each paycheck simply to buy more guns or ammo. I certainly know people that do.




And yet we see the people who don't care about permits are the same ones that do most of the harm. Permitting does not guarantee safety. It creates a barrier to responsible people. Regardless of the propaganda sold by the Blumbergs and Bradys there is not blood running in the streets or rolling shoot outs in states that have permitless carry. Citizens have to be allowed to be responsible for themselves. The people that aren't going to be responsible aren't deterred by pemits.




When discussing responsibility it is a more than just people should seek the training they need, whatever that is. Different people require different levels of training. It is also the responsibility of action. If you abuse your right, you get to pay the price. For instance it has been illegal to be intoxicated while driving for a long time. There are ad campaigns. There are "stiff" penalties. people still do it. We don't ban alcohol, that was tried and didn't work. We don't ban cars. Simply put you can't legislate moral or good behavior. You can ensure that people who abuse their rights are punished accordingly.

I really don't care what the left tries to use. It doesn't matter. If we acquiesce to demands we lose the rights regardless. If we are scared to exercise our rights because we are afraid they will want to take them away, they are already gone. And to be fair, no matter how much some are given they want more. There are people that won't be satisfied by anything less than a full ban and confiscation. I am not willing to give in.



We won't, but you at least made discussion points without needing to be insulting. I appreciate that.

HOUSTON — Tony Earls hung his head before a row of television cameras, staring down, his life upended. Days before, Earls had pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an ATM in Houston.

Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her.

“Is Mr. Earls licensed to carry?” a reporter asked during the February news conference, in which his lawyer spoke for him.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times

He didn’t need one, the lawyer replied. “Everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law.” A grand jury later agreed, declining to indict Earls for any crime.

The shooting was part of what many sheriffs, police leaders and district attorneys in urban areas of Texas say has been an increase in people carrying weapons and in spur-of-the-moment gunfire in the year since the state began allowing most adults 21 or over to carry a handgun without a license.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-goes-permitless-guns-police-183526824.html

imagine losing your daughter because of a good guy with a gun, and no consequences for the person shooting...

Losing a daughter, a son, a spouse, a parent, a friend - would be beyond traumatic.

A few questions though, which you may not have the answer to, and the article doesn't address: 1. If the thief was running away, the threat was over. To my understanding, if your life or the life of someone is not in imminent danger, i.e. the danger is over - you can't shoot. Maybe it's different in Texas?

2. No criminal consequences, but I'm sure there will be civil consequences, as there should be - based on what I read in the article.
Regardless, someone innocent died - and not just an innocent person, if it makes a difference, but a young child.

"Why We Need a Firearms Ban"

Dead children.

You think kids, and other innocent people, don't die in cities that have basically banned guns?

All those people will turn in their guns as soon as a ban is enacted. 🤪

you think an assault rifle ban wont save children's lives?

Who's talking about assault rifles? Oh, you. Nice way to avoid my question.

I dont have to answer any questions.

You just spoke volumes about you.

I dont know what Texas law allows or doesn't allow. I figured whatever stand your ground law they have was similar to other states, such as Florida. Maybe they do allow for people to apprehend the suspect after the danger is over?

but even if that's the case, i didn't think any law in any states would provide legal cover if someone killed an innocent bystander during the pursuit.

And you just spoke volumes about yourself. How in the actual hell can you even remotely defend open/consealed carry guns when kids are being killed? Evil incarnate.

Agreed. Thanks for the response, unlike baddog

If a so-called good guy with a gun kills one of mine, there will be a second shooting.

Proof of my saying you seem like a violent person.

I suppose it is a good thing you are against carrying of firearms.

I am a very violent person arch, so what? I'm from the alpha male branch.

I'm more against a bunch of idiots killing kids and getting away with it over some BS like "good guy with a gun". A man who kills a child 'by accident' because he thinks he's dirty Harry is no better than a school shooter in my book.

Just quoting your own words.

Quote away.

The stand your ground laws were enacted eliminate the "duty to retreat" provisions in self defense legislation. I don't believe there is anything there that allows one to pursue someone and then shoot them. Like Arch said, once the threat is over, you can't use deadly force.

I have taken several concealed carry classes (Friends who wanted to take the classes but didn't want to go alone), and everyone emphasizes the concept of "avoidance". Be situational aware to remove yourself before it becomes an issue, if in the event, find cover and protect yourself and your loved ones, and only use your firearm as an absolute last resort. The legal issues alone, even if your in the right, will create havoc in your life.

Even if you are justified, it's not like the cop on the scene says, "You're good" and you go about your life. There will be a lot of legal red tape to deal with after the event.

I'll try to answer your question. Criminals will always carry guns. Children will always be killed by said criminals. That can't be stopped. But don't you think less children being killed is a good thing? You see, the article was about a man who was legal to carry with no permit required. No training required. Obviously he didn't understand how to take a clear shot without killing an innocent child. Trying to use the excuse that children will be killed anyway doesn't excuse law abiding citizens walking around with zero training adding to the body count.

Very true. That's why it seems a little absurd when people scream "ban firearms!" but never utter a word about the obvious. Even more absurd when people (not saying you) jump to some strange conclusion that those opposed to a firearms ban are in favor of dead children.

As per usual it seems any common sense middle ground gets rejected by both extremes. Good times.

meanwhile...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/20/us-arms-sales-weapons-biden-election-pledge

US has increased arms sales abroad despite Biden election pledge
Report by Quincy Institute says ‘current US arms policy and practice too often fuel war rather than deterring it’

Biden at the Lockheed Martin weapons factory in Troy, Alabama.
Biden at the Lockheed Martin weapons factory in Troy, Alabama. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Maya Yang
Thu 20 Oct 2022 13.25 EDT
Despite an election pledge by Joe Biden to not “check [America’s] values at the door” when it comes to arms sales, the US has increased, not decreased, its weapons sales around the world, including to countries with repressive regimes, a new report reveals.

Four men stand behind cardboard boxes with protest messages on them that are at their feet. Another man stands nearby holding a large sign that reads 'Duty free fund Israeli apartheid'.
ACLU asks supreme court to overturn Arkansas’ anti-boycott law against Israel
Read more
According to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington-based thinktank, most of the sales also involve just four companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and General Dynamics. The four were involved in 58% all the major offers made since the Biden administration took office.

“The concentrated lobbying power of these companies – including a “revolving door” from the Pentagon’s arms sales agency and the leveraging of weapons export-related jobs into political influence – has been brought to bear in efforts to expand US weapons exports to as many foreign clients as possible, often by helping to exaggerate threats,” said the report, released on Thursday.

US arms offers did drop sharply in the first year of the Biden administration, from $110.9bn in the last year of the Donald Trump administration to just $36bn. The report suggests the decrease could be partly due to a “less aggressive approach” to arms sales promotion but was more likely the result of market saturation, caused by a large volume of deals concluded during the presidencies of Barack Obama and Trump.

As of October, annual arms offers have increased to $65bn, partly due to increased sales to Europe and Asia – “tied to the Pentagon’s focus on ‘great power competition’ with Russia and China”.

“Current US arms policy and practice too often fuel war rather than deterring it. Roughly two-thirds of current conflicts – 34 out of 46 – involve one or more parties armed by the United States,” the report said.

“Of the US-supplied nations at war, 16 received $50m or more worth of US arms between 2017 and 2021. This contradicts the longstanding argument that US arms routinely promote stability and deter conflict,” it added.

Indonesia ranks first in the top recipient of US arms deals as of September, with $13.9bn in offers, according to the report. Greece and Germany come in next at $10.2bn and $10.1bn. Between Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates - the bottom three recipients – total offers between $3.4bn and $4.7bn have been made from January 2021 to September this year.

Lockheed Martin had the largest share of involvement in major deals. The weapons it produces are the main component of deals worth $25.8bn since February 2021, the report said.

Advertisement
Boeing came in second, with arms deals at $22.65bn, followed by General Dynamics at $7.7bn since February 2021, including a $6bn offer of M-1 tanks to Poland and a share of a $1.7bn worth of heavy armored vehicles to Australia. Raytheon ranked fourth, involved in deals worth $4.7bn.

“The biggest payoffs for major contractors come from sales of combat aircraft, followed by missile defense systems,” the report said.

In 2021, the arms industry employed 766 lobbyists – “far more than one for every member of Congress”, the report found.

“Arms exporters and the US government routinely cite job creation as a reason to sell weapons to foreign clients. But the number of jobs associated with arms sales is greatly exaggerated … Spending on weapons produces 40 percent fewer jobs than spending on infrastructure or green energy, and 100 percent fewer jobs than spending on education,” it said.

The thinktank recommended a number of policy measures including restricting the revolving door between government and industry in attempts to weaken the control that weapons manufacturers have over arms-transfer decision-making.

The report also called on Congress to revise the Arms Export Control Act to require an affirmative congressional vote on major deals, instead of the current system that simply requires a veto-proof majority to block any arms deal.

And it urged the Biden administration to provide greater transparency on the delivery and use of US arms.

I'm sure the war in Ukraine had nothing to do with it. I mean if an article wishes to talk about transparency.

Love your quote at bottom- problem- God/Jesus stated love God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your neighbor as yourself....something close. Who is your neighbor? How many guns/ammo do you own to kill your fellow man/neighbor? The so called Christian Right sees the world as Christians and non-christians, gun advocates and those who would rather love their neighbor. Wonder how many assault rifles/ gun Christ would own if he were living in America today. Who he worry about how much ammo he had or if his assault weapon magazines were big enough. Peace.

Most of my family borders on the fringe right. They are also very dogmatic Christians. I often try to explain the anomalies between the far right and true, biblical Christian (as in what Christ himself did, advocated for, and said in the Gospel), but they want to hear none of it.

And that's sad. Sometimes I think they're reading a different Bible than I am. But no, when checking, they're not.

2 people can read the same book, yet interpret it completely different. This is especially true of a book with no modern references or scenarios.

And especially when it's fiction.

the global community should come together and grant me the power to rewrite the books for the big 3 religions.

i'm a real god, so i won't leave anything to interpretation.

When you hyperfocus on the Christian parts, is there that much room for interpretation? It seems to me that most people's interpretations of Christ from the Gospels are pretty uniform. I suppose that's if you base it on the texts, though, and not the words of demagogues.

Man, somebody woke up on the troll side of the bed this morning.

If you strip it down the the most basic message, it is "Be good to each other". But people often get caught up in the details, which lead to different interpretations depending on perspective.

I tend to conclude that they focus on the parts which suit their own preconceived notions and ignore the rest. It's my opinion that organized religion is the worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity.

Sadly, that speaks to "the evil that men do". What a dichotomy. Jesus says there's strength in numbers, mankind says "hold my beer". Mouthpieces become self-serving leaders, proponents and opponents cherry-pick and push a narrative that is interpreted by these so-called-leaders.

There's no problem with the bible, there's a problem with a bunch of people trying to tell you what it means.

What a different world we would live in if people would just trust their hearts and intuition... and all the windbags would quit telling people what to think.

What you said just made me realize how similar that construct is to political parties. It starts off as a pretty good thing where people come together with common goals of bettering the world and society, and then it morphs into some trying to garner as much influence as possible, directing the masses, and then ostracizing (or worse) anyone who goes against the grain. For whatever reason, I never drew that parallel in my mind before.

The funny thing is I say all this being a Catholic, with a mostly Jesuit based influence (meaning the right kind, superbowldawg! ). It's a double-edged sword, because the Jesuit influence especially inspired and exposed me to the value of charity and actions being much louder than words. A lot of the good things I've done and a lot of the virtues I live by were inspired by that portion of my life. On the other hand, and more in line with your point, the church is chock full of demagogues, and has been throughout history, leading to the aforementioned dynamic I shared with my family. They have become so wrapped up and radicalized - most recently by Milo Yiannapolous - which honestly, blows my mind completely when you think about him in his entirety. The brainwash factor is strong.

It probably comes as no surprise to you, based on all our conversations, that my approach mirrors yours that we should all have our faiths and beliefs, but not hold each other accountable by our own faith standards, which so many people struggle with.

There is a big difference between you and many religious followers however. By reading your post above it's obvious you have the ability to separate the what from the chaff. You see both the good and the bad. As such you take the good and leave the bad. Sadly that's not such a common occurrence.

While I'm sure our religious views probably don't mirror each others, I think your last sentence is correct in how we agree. I'll take it one step further. Christ said those that accept him as their Lord and savior would be saved. Not that his teachings should be inflicted on the masses. That eliminates choosing to accept it. That's having it forced upon you. And the fact people think that their religious beliefs should be inflicted on the country defies what the constitution says concerning freedom of religion.

Subjects with basic privileges vs citizens with rights. 2nd Amendment- key parts- the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Did founders- who owned flintlocks and crude shotguns- did they see into the future- Uzis, AR-15s, individual weapons capable of killing dozens or hundred or more in a minute/or two. That's what they'd want or envision when they penned those words. JMHO, it is a resounding NO.
And the first part, a well regulated militia- now we have any jackass out with his AR-15 helping police crime scenes. They are just protecting the good people. Right. Funny how the fundamentalist religious have lots of high powered guns and ammo so they can kill the needing when the big ending comes. Humanity, ain't we great.
We need better gun laws- bans on assault rifles, Uzis type handguns, and large quantity magazines would be a good start.

Anyone should have a shotgun or bolt rifle for hunting or home protection or low capacity hand guns....just not MILITARY type weapons.
Peace.

Good for you.

Why does everything have to be ban or not ban?

You can ride a bicycle on a roadway, assuming you follow the basic road rules. But you need a training and a license to drive a car on the road, and you need even more training and special license to drive a large truck. (Should need extra training for some of these guys in the dually's )

Why can't firearms be treated in a similar way?

Because government mandates lead to de facto bans.

Yes, because our government and our people cannot compromise anymore. Too busy trying to always be right and in control, and not any interest in finding middle ground that the majority can agree on.

Average lifespan of a democracy is 200 years, we've almost made it to 250. It's only a matter of time.

Not sure why we should be compromising with the government. They are there to serve us in a limited capacity, not rule us and get fat off the public good.

Because as you can see by the response people have abandoned common sense for conspiracy theories and extremism and feel it's a threat from Big Brother.

It's not Government compromise with the people, its government cannot compromise, and the people cannot compromise. Both sets are constantly fighting for absolutes.

But I am sure you understood that.

And some people believe that the government is only there to take care of us and look out for our well being.

MD has required "good and substantial reason" for a permit to carry for decades. It has been used to ban people from being able to bear arms by using an arbitrary standard "we can't define it but we know it when we see it". The only people that have been able to show G&S seems to be merchants that carry money. If the business money is stolen they can't tax it so it is important. They've shoveled the idea that "no one wants a permit anyways, except for a deranged few". Since the June ruling MD has been force to issue and has issued over 35,000 permits and it hasn't started to slow down yet.

It was a de facto ban on a fundamental right using "common sense" reasoning.

You seem to think because you live in a permissive state that government capriciousness should be acceptable.

You keep promoting people have the right to carry a gun with no requirement to have any training. Because as much as you say you want them to get training, you know a lot of people won't if it isn't mandated. Hopefully, if you have children, one of them won't fall victim to your folly.

No, I don't think "the government is only there to take care of us and look out for our well being". But having some minimum standard of responsibility is helpful for those who believe in that sort of thing.

You've again spun what I said. Go back and read what i wrote. The state used the idea you have to show good cause to keep people from obtaining a license. I did not mention a training requirement. They wanted that too, after you proved a ambiguous and capricious standard of "good and substantial reason".

I was speaking about exactly what you have said regarding this subject in the past. Then you claimed I was spinning your words about wanting people to get firearms training. You plainly stated that you wanted them to but didn't want it to be mandatory. Don't try to walk it back now.

This argument over guns will never be settled... But it's already been settled simply by the number of existing guns. You will never put that genie back in the bottle. So all this arguing is useless.

I was discussing other arbitrary requirements and you spin it back to training. But yes, mandatory training requirements are a barrier to exercise. NY State is trying 16 hours classroom and 2 hours range time every three years. They aren't doing it for safety, they aren't doing it out of "common sense" or to ensure people have the "basic skills needed". They are doing it to be so burdensome as to cause people to just not, especially coupled with their desire to turn every public place into a "sensitive" place to disallow carry unless the owner expressly posts a sign saying it is ok.

Barriers. Common sense is just a way to not have to explain the 20,000 guns laws currently on the books aren't stopping people from killing people and more won't help.

And it was nice to see you pull out the old "for the children" trope.

Lol. Fact checker says…..you get three Pinocchio’s for repeating the 20,000 gun laws on the books figure. Congrats!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...c0-6f23-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html


By any reasonable measure, this is suspicious figure. Its origin is murky, and it is inconceivable that the same number of gun laws would exist now as some five decades ago.

Moreover, even experts who favor the NRA’s agenda have their doubts about the figure or its relevance. It may well be the case that there are “thousands” of laws, but what does that mean? What does counting statutes, or local regulations, say about the quality or effectiveness of those laws?

We don’t play gotcha here at The Fact Checker, so we accept that LaPierre misspoke when he said 9,000 federal laws rather than 20,000 laws across the nation. But that slip of the tongue actually points out the fuzzy nature of the claim.

This 20,000 figure appears to be an ancient guesstimate that has hardened over the decades into a constantly repeated, never-questioned talking point.

So the number 20,000 is wrong but they don't know what the right number is? Does 1000 suit you better? 7634? The point being we continue to be told we need more laws to save lives and the laws we were sold to do that don't seem to work. Couple that with politicians selling these laws have little idea what they actually encompass. For instance and assault weapon can be define because it has a folding stock and a bayonet lug. Those scary scary bayonet lugs. Or the ever popular barrel shroud being the "shoulder thing that pops up".**

I'm all for stopping violence, but when we have people who are continually charged as "felon in possession" and the continue to be out and about hurting people it makes no sense when I'm told the "shoulder thing that pops up" is killing children.

But hey, continue the "oh I gotcha" nonsense. It continues to change minds everywhere.

**Edit to add I take the WP fact checking anything about guns, especially when they can mention the NRA with a HUGE grain of salt. They are not known for being neutral in this.

I don't know that the number 20,000 gun laws is wrong. In fact, this link says over 300,000 gun laws. https://gunlawsuits.org/gun-laws/federal-gun-laws/

The difference is what one counts as a gun law. Federal laws, state laws, and local laws. Add in hunting laws. Use of gun laws, etc.

However, not 1 single law says shooting someone for no reason is legal.

I don’t think it’s a matter of more laws like you suggest. It’s a matter of effective laws. If a law is ineffective, fix it. Change it so it’s more effective. But doing nothing is the GOPer way. That’s what we get. So be it.

I've not suggested enacting more laws. Anti gun laws are ineffective. Put criminals in jail, keep them there, especially violent criminals.

I guess we should just ignore dead children. God knows they don't count. Here's the funny thing about this. Most people such as yourself believe in states rights. Yet when states exercise those rights you complain about them when you don't like them and praise them when you do like them. What you do is point out the most egregious state laws and pretend there aren't states that have common sense gun laws. The story in this thread was about a 10 year old girl who was shot and killed by "accident" by a man who didn't know how to take a safe shot. Oh I forgot, I was supposed to ignore that part.

You try to act as though some minimum threshold for people who plan to carry a gun isn't common sense. That society shouldn't expect that minimum threshold be demanded. To me that is dangerous and of course a prime example was this 10 year old girl being killed that I'm not supposed to talk about. Good job.

I know, you suggested we don’t need more gun laws I get it. Many gun laws are ineffective because it’s too easy to get one. Fix that issue. And only 50% of all homicides in the US are solved.. The Jan 6th violent criminals are only getting 1-7 years. Pfft. Fix those issues GOPer’s. What’s the plan? Oh wait, they don’t have one or their plan is to do nothing at all on gun violence and lower taxes on the rich as usual.

Do you think state mandated training means someone cannot miss? Do you believe this specific incident changes if the person had sat through 16 hours of classroom training? Do you think a simple 25 round qualification standing on a range means you are now a tier 1 operator and shoot target seeking boolits?


A defensive shooting environment is chaotic and dynamic. There are no guarantees in that environment. None. The best you can hope for is to hedge the chances to your favor by being prepared. I don't know what training this person did or did not have but there is no training that gives you a 100% chance of success in this.

I do not blather on about states rights. I am concerned about individual rights, but since you seem to be stuck there.

The 2A restricts the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A is an individual right (The People) not a collective right (The State). This means people have the right. There is a long list of SCOTUS decisions on this, I have mentioned them before. The right is for individuals and the restriction is incorporated against the states as well, by 14A. Again, this is the rulings from SCOTUS. The current state of affairs is such that the right does include arms in common use or that have a military benefit, the right allows individuals to keep and bear arms and the right can only be restricted using text, history and tradition as a basis as long as the underlying conduct is constitutional. You can't carry with the intent to murder.

I have pointed out egregious laws because they exist. You pretend that states will not use any means they can to keep people exercising their rights. You keep pretending they just have the public good in their hearts. You live in a permissive state. There are many states that would outright ban if they could. Stop pretending like that is not the case. But it doesn't effect you personally so it is ok. MA, NY, NJ, HI, MD, DC, CT, RI all have various methods of trying to use "common sense" to restrict rights. None of them meet the muster of text, history and tradition.

Stick to a point. Jan 6th has nothing to do with this.

How many murders are solved? Conflating homicide and murder is the first rule of gun grabbers.

You keep seeming to claim that training would not stop people with no experience from making mistakes. That simply doesn't make any sense. Once again you try to use the standards of some states out of 50 to make your point. It doesn't. Making you get basic firearms training does not "restrict your rights" to own and carry a firearm. I've made no claims that there aren't certain states that carry things too far. Actually I've said exactly the opposite. Still, that doesn't restrict your rights to own or carry a firearm. A restriction prevents you from doing something. No matter how crazy a states law is, it still doesn't prevent you from carrying a weapon if their guidelines are followed. If you go by history slavery would still be legal and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. Using history as an excuse is a very slippery slope.

I have made no such claim.

You seem to claim that mandatory training would keep people from making mistakes. It will not.

I have always advocated people get training.

Mandatory training may not always be used to stop people, but the fact it can be is the issue. You seem to have this idea that no one will get training if it isn't required and that states will always just do what is right and just.

Try it the other way around and you might understand what freedom looks like.


And stop spinning and using straw arguments. Text, history and tradition are used to test restrictions on rights. It is patently obvious that slavery itself is a restriction on rights.

You know you are lying about what I've said in regards to you supporting gun training. I've said many times, including yesterday that you support training but not mandated training. Try to keep it in mind this time for future reference. I understand what freedom looks like. I also understand what responsibility looks like. They are not mutually exclusive. And no, mandatory training won't stop all people from making mistakes but it will certainly stop some from making basic mistakes. To claim otherwise is living in a fools paradise. I have also made it clear that if left to their own device some responsible people will get training. Many will not. When I'm out shopping I don't want to guess who is carrying a gun that has no clue how to use it. It seems you do because no matter how much you wish to act like everything is okay without mandatory training, it's not.

When you are out shopping you are guessing.

You don't know the quality of the instructor or if they were even training exempt. Shooting is an active skill, it doesn't get better by not doing it, no matter the claim in the thread I started on shooting.

Mandatory training is used as a barrier. States will enact stricter and stricter rules in the name of "common sense safety" to discourage or out right ban people from carrying. Tell me what training will suffice in HI.

If it can be used to restrict the exercise of a basic right it will be used that way and that is wrong. Period. Full stop.

Yet no mention of all the permitless carry states. Your full stop only seems to work in your world. You act as though learning basic gun safety protocol has no value unless you are actively target practice. That's a false premise. And that's the entire issue. You either have people who want to ban guns or people that wish to attach no responsibility in training for people walking around in our society carrying a weapon that can fire off 19 rounds in a few seconds. It a world gone mad. Now that's what a full stop looks like.

Look at those goal posts running about.


I have stated people should get training. I am against arbitration and capricious mandated training. Those two ideas are not exclusive of each other no matter how you spin.

I know you have a need to spin and change what I say so you can attack.

Either you promote mandated training or you don't. You don't. Using your old tactic of blaming others when they call you out doesn't really work. Hoping everyone will do the right thing doesn't work either. So your idea is that you hope and promote they get training but if and when many won't, and many, many won't, the rest of society should just eat it and hope for the best.

Yuli have to hope for the best daily. Baltimore, for instance, is near the top statistically in homicides yearly. How many of those would be prevented if people who are carrying illegally didn't skip the mandatory training?

The use of mandates only burdens those that would be law abiding. You continue to believe laws keep people from doing stupid things.

If you are irresponsible with you rights you should be put somewhere you can't harm others.

It will certainly prevent some. The problem with your scenario is you only know they will be irresponsible with their rights AFTER they are irresponsible with their rights. By then it's too late. I understand that criminals will be criminals. There's no way to stop that. That's no excuse to promote that law abiding citizens have no need to act responsibly. And no "hopes that they will" won't address that issue.

Maybe if you insist on not doing the responsible thing in making sure everyone have a basic understanding of how to handle and use a firearm if they plan to carry one in public is being irresponsible with your rights?

The court was clear in Bruen that "the public safety" is not a test to allow infringement. The 2A two step is "one step too many" according to Bruen.

If you've not read the decision you are punching in the dark. Every single argument you have made is squished in that document.

Text, history and tradition are the only factors. Feelings, "public good" and "common sense" cannot be used to deny, infringe or delay a right. Period. No right has been as burdened at 2A and that time is now done.

It appears as though that decision must have been pretty meaningless since so many states still have actual required training for the right to carry a firearm in public. It appears that is not considered an infringement as you keep insisting it is. As I said, if those were the only factors we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote.

Your excuses as to why as a society we do not demand basic public safety are just that, excuses.

You don't understand how it all works do you?

Once the court renders this type of decision laws can be challenged in court, using the new text, history and tradition as the standard of review.

We get to pay the government to let us sue them. Hopefully as the cases work their way through the courts plaintiffs can realize 1983 claims.

You mean like Roe vs Wade? Pretending that outdated text or precedent holds up in courts these days is a fools errand. I understand how it all works. I've seen some of the dumbest things contested in courts across this country since the 2020 election I certainly understand how it all works.

I don't see mandated training doing anything. What is that going to accomplish other than maybe prevent a few accidental shootings? The bulk of the people doing the shootings that are causing the problems aren't going to submit to training.

I am not trying to be a dork and argue with you. I just don't see that having any impact other than to create one more layer of red tape and infringement of privacy on us law abiding citizens.

Both of us are gun owners. You don't go around shooting people. I don't, yet we are the ones who end up paying for everything and have to jump through hoops because of the bad actors in society.

Maybe I am just old fashioned, but I don't like it when the government starts telling people they don't need guns, shouldn't, or can't have them.

Outdated text? Bruen was decided in June 2022.

Lol I’m no math genius but if you subtract 50% from 100% you’ll have your answer. And a high majority of those solved are white victims.

You are no legal genius either.

Homicide = the killing of a human by a human. This include justified and unjustified killings.
Murder = a type of unjustified homicide, usually but not always with an intent or malice factor.

So how many murders are solved? Not how many homicides are solved. Tossing homicide into the bucket is done to make the stat look more firendly.

But the government didn't say those things. Gun safety training in no way even suggests the things you mentioned. Some states simply require that if you're going to go around in public carrying a loaded firearm you should be required to have some basic training in how to handle it and fire it. And actually there are people who certainly don't need it. I was raised around firearms. Taught to safely handle them and fire them. When and if the government does what you are claiming I will gladly join you. But that's not what's being done. There's noting about a firearms safety course that suggests you "don't need guns, shouldn't, or can't have them." Quite the opposite in fact.

I guess we just have a different definition of what jumping through hoops means. I've never looked at a basic gun safety course that way. Any time you purchase a firearm legally you must fill out paperwork. If privacy is your concern, that's where it was lost at not after it was purchased when you take a safety course. There's nothing about taking a safety course that has any impact on that. I have known people who decided to purchase and carry a firearm who certainly would not have gone through a safety course had it not been required. They had no clue and no experience handling a weapon much less firing one.

I'm not that much less old fashioned in a lot of ways than you are. But insuring that every legal gun owner who is walking around in public at least has basic gun training is something I myself am willing to go through so we don't have a bunch of wannabe Dirty Harry's who have no clue what they're doing are out there with loaded weapons at the grocery store. In the event that a "good guy with a gun has to defend against a bad guy with a gun", I don't want that good guy shooting innocent people because he doesn't have a clue how to handle a gun.

It's wonderful to have such a great legal expert such as yourself on our message board. I had no idea that was your profession. Oh wait, it isn't.

Good to know you have conceded again.

We already have a lot of wannabe gangsters who don't have any training.

Although 'discussions' like this thread are ultimately pointless, you do bring up a legit question and I have a minute to spare.

I think a lot depends on the State and the circumstances. There was a case where NYPD opened up on a guy stabbing people in Midtown Manhattan. They got him but also hit something like 9 bystanders. They got in trouble. During the Rittenhouse trial hitting a bystander was an issue. When he fired the shots at the pedo Rosenbaum, there was a journalist behind him that got grazed in the leg from one of the shots. If the jury found Rittenhouse lawfully shot Rosenbaum, they could not as a matter of WI law find him guilty of hitting the journo (that was a reckless endangerment type charge). However, if they found he did unlawfully shoot Rosenbaum, they could find him guilty for hitting the journo.

*for the record I don't care what anyone's opinion of that case was. I only brought it up because it was a good, real life Court illustration of this type of scenario *

If we eliminate suicides 24,292 gun deaths a year, we are left talking about 20,930 of which, 19,000 were murders.

On a per capita basis, there were 13.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020 – the highest rate since the mid-1990s, but still well below the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974.

So you propose we just add to that number. Perfect!

What you fail to mention is that as this goes through the court system it could just as easily be overturned and end up being meaningless. But that's what you do. You use legal cases that are not settled law to try and prove your point. People aren't as gullible as you seem to think they are. And no, why would I concede to some wannabe lawyer?

I was speaking about the text the case is predicated on. But then I didn't expect people like you and Memphis to comprehend that. I thought it was pretty clear when I said that it often times doesn't hold up in court these days but I need to keep in mind who is reading and who I'm responding to. I should have known a much deeper explanation would be required for it to sink in.

I did not fail to mention anything. You might want to a specious argument but I am not required to produce it for you.

The law of the land is now text, history, and tradition. This is the legal requirement. This is not a hard concept to understand. If a lower court rules opposed to that it moves up the chain. It is likely that it will eventually make it back to SCOTUS who have set the rule of the land to be text, history and tradition.

Lower courts do not like to be overruled. It doesn't look good on your resume to ignore a legal precedent from SCOTUS. Can it happen? Yes. Should it happen? No. If it does it is likely yet another activist judge who should not be on the bench to start with.

Bruen was mentioned then you said it was outdated. We cannot be expected to read your mind. The fact you cannot communicate well is no one's fault but your own.

first, glad to see you back here.

second, make sense with the rittenhouse example. i think rittenhouse would've still been in the clear though. with this case, i dunno if this was during the act of the incident. Rittenhouse at least had that benefit of doubt, but the guy was already robbed, the suspect was already bolting out of the area, and THEN the guy fired into the wrong vehicle. So he didn't even fire at the actual suspect at minimum, he had the wrong target and ended up hitting an innocent bystander. maybe he's in the clear the if the suspect was actually driving the vehicle?

It's not my fault you have a comprehension issue. Deflection won't help you with that.

When you make gibberish points it is your fault.

Bruen is the law of the land. It takes time to overturn laws that are in conflict. This is simple.

If a lower court overruled an abortion law using Roe as precedent it would fail since Dobbs is the law of the law now. That is how the legal system works.

I hope you are being purposefully obtuse because I imagine a man in your position in life couldn't possibly be so stupid. Until the SCOTUS decides on a law, no such law is settled. If that were so there would be no legal requirements in any state for training to obtain a CCW permit. That certainly isn't the case because as of now it isn't a settled matter.

Just as your accusation of how I claimed that antiquated texts being used in a case meant the case itself. Because you see, a court case is given in an oral manner. The precedents used in a case are based on texts written from transcripts of previous cases. I see you have tried to move away from the actual debate itself to try to and make this personal but you are failing miserably.

Usually when you run out of counter points you insult people and this is no different. You also continue to use specious arguments.

The standard SCOTUS has handed down is text, history and tradition. This was part of the Bruen decision. That is not up for debate. Go read the decision if you refuse to believe it. This does not immediately invalidate laws in place. I have not said that. It is the standard of review for any case that comes before any court now. Current laws can be, and are being, challenged using that standard. It is the required standard now.

As laws are challenged, if the fail this test, they will go. Never have I indicated this is an instantaneous process, but it IS the process. The 2A Two Step given in Heller I is dead. No more it is an unparrot.

Keep your schoolhouse insult to yourself.

If it were not up for debate it wouldn't still be going through the court system. By your example Roe vs wade was also a ruling the SCOTUS handed down that was text, tradition and history for almost 50 years. It was not a settled matter either.

I had no idea telling you that I didn't think you're stupid would be something you would find so offensive. Maybe I should reconsider that opinion of you to make you happy.

"I hope you are being purposefully obtuse"

Which implies I am obtuse, purposefully or otherwise. But of course you only include the part you can spin as not an insult.

Bruen is not still going through the system. It is decided. It is conceivable a much different court (in the future) would change that, but since June it is decided. Lower courts must adhere to it. That's how the hierarchy of the judicial branch works.

Roe was not overturned at the state or circuit, which is part of the point. It was the standard of review until SCOTUS reviewed and change it. Before that courts had to use it.

I do hope that's what you're doing. Because to believe otherwise would cause me to come to a far more negative conclusion. And I backed that up by concluding that I didn't think you were stupid. You aren't one of those #snowflakes are you?

No I am one of those people that get tired of using cogent arguments the the being insulted.

Again saying that would imply I am obtuse, which is an insult. Backtracking and spin do not change it. You say it, own it.

I do own it. Unlike you who bring obtuse points and sidetrack the discussion by making it a personal issue. Your problem seems to be that when you do that I just happen to be better than you at it. You act as though only your points are cogent and nobody else could possibly make counterpoints that hold merit. That would be incorrect.

As I said, I own it but I'll also repeat that if I didn't believe you were being purposefully obtuse it would cause me to come to a far more negative conclusion.

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.

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.