Jump to content

Flynn

Members
  • Posts

    8,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flynn

  1. It's not rational, it's not logical, it's not even plausible, their entirely flawed argument is to ignore all other lawful uses (even though Heller/Bruen said the 2nd protects them all) and say that out of all the cases of self-defense AR-15s (or whatever) are not used that often for self defense, thus they are not "commonly used" for self-defense, the heck with all the other lawful uses that Heller/Bruen says are protected as well over and above self-defense. Yes, their argument is full of 1001 holes, it's beyond flawed, it's mental gymnastics at the Olympic level but it's what they are trying to bluff the judges with as they have nothing else and are trying to avoid the history and tradition test that Heller/Bruen dictates.
  2. It's a Constitutionally protected civil rights case, mediation should literally not even be on the table 🤬 And neither should it be pushed out 1.5 years! 🤬 It's becoming more and more clear, that many of the inferior courts and judges continue to snub their noses at the Supreme Court!
  3. Exactly, and it was only enacted then to assist police and law enforcement aka a public interest aka means-ends policy. I don't see how it can stand post Bruen unless the SCOTUS overrules and reverses course on Heller/Bruen. And we have to remember that once law is found unconstitutional it's as if it never existed at all since day one, so a settlement in this case is just odd at this point in time, if they were found guilty/liable they would have a very solid defense and possibly even a potential 1983 claim, now they have basically nothing, thus I suspect the fine print was actually pretty sweat for them but allows California to brag.
  4. If I was a betting man I would say this is a mostly publicity settlement. I highly suspect P80 will not pay any of that or possibly a small percentage as long as they continue to follow California's rules going foward. It's really odd timing for a settlement like this (post-Bruen) where serialization itself is a questionably unconstitutional requirement unless P80 got a sweet deal in the fine print.
  5. That is actually an interesting argument, what is the base line and what degree of variance and design changes would a new or different rifle design need to no longer be considered an AR or AK type under the law? This would not really lead to the victory we desire as it still allows a ban on rifles in common use, but it shows how absurd their classificaiton of scary rifles is and how they simply cast a huge net without clarification.
  6. Yep, the media spin a narrative, due to silence or half-reporting, and then they toss in an opinion. As you said this was a prime example, and like you said the media is hyping up the fact that the Supreme Court didn't take up the case as a victory legitimizing all gun bans, even though the case continues, without even touching on the fact that it was extremely rare for the SCOTUS to get involved at all this early on and that precedent leans towards the Supreme Court not getting involved until the lower courts actually complete the case and rule. The fact that the SCOTUS got involved at all shows the SCOTUS is watching these cases, and anyone paying attention knows that Bruen was already the white glove slap to the lower courts for not following Heller and a warning they need to get with the program. I have no doubt that if any circuit court upholds these bans the SCOTUS is going to come out with boxing gloves on and lay down the law hard on the lower courts making them well aware that they are the inferior courts and are bound to follow SCOTUS precedent. As bad is it is, we just need to tollerate the not so fun ride until the end, and watch the avalanche of falling gun laws start as once these magazine and "assualt weapon" bans fail, we will be in a position to tear down a plethora of gun laws across the country.
  7. You might want to consider that it's sometimes much wiser to pick the battles you can win over lost causes. This is especially true for someone whose livelihood is being threated and cut off and they need to put food on their table. Don't get me wrong, I think staying and fighting if you can and are able should be done, but sometimes the smart move is to toss in the towel and regroup for a battle you can win vs punching a brick wall.
  8. There are lawsuits in several circuits, if Illinois rules against the AWB, and the other courts rule for it, the SCOTUS has the circuit split they generally desire to have when they take up a topic when the plaintiffs appeal. IMO this is going to the SCOTUS no matter what, it's just a matter of what state's case is the one the SCOTUS picks up on appeal and how soon. The 7th very well might not want to be the one white gloved this time around, I suspect it's th e 9ths turn 🤣
  9. That is really odd for a case that revolves around such an important topic such as a enumerated right, everything should be submitted to the court and be public records, so that there is no room for 'games' to be played!
  10. How dare the SCOTUS protect an enumerted civil right! The horror! The irony being that he claims their will be a "popular revolt" that is literally why rights are enumerated by the Constitution and protected by courts so that the "popular" aka majority doesn't deny people thier rights!
  11. Ah, the old spelling deflection 🙄 I have fat fingers when I type on a phone/tablet do you need help reading something I posted? Plus, yep, I'm not the best speller, never have been, I excel in math and science, I push numbers and equations far better than I push letters. All that said I still managed to understand you when you had a spelling error, and I didn't go all ad hominem over a spelling error 🤣 What about Samuel Whittemore? Are you suggesting his age somehow means everyone is part of the militia even though the law(s) says otherwise? I'm stating facts, the militia is not and never has been "the whole of the people" some may insist it is, claim it's supposed to be, argue that it should be, but the fact remains the militia has never been "the whole of the people"
  12. What about it? Same applies, the Illinois militia is not "the whole people" either.
  13. And unlike other states, Illinois already has SCOTUS watching over in an active capacity.
  14. It still is that way, I quoted the current US code above, basically the only thing that has changed is they lowered the age to 17, and eliminated "free" & "white" from those males that qualify and we now allow women to join the "organized militia" aka the National Guard. Still a lot of society that is excluded from the militia, thus even today (even if essentially non-existant) the militia only represents a small portion of "the whole people"
  15. Were blacks part of the militia when that was authored? Where native Americans part of the militia when that was authored? Were women part of the militia when that was authored? Were the elderly part of the militia when that was authored? Were the disbabled part of the militia when that was authored? And it still isn't here is modern law The militia as I said has never been the whole of the people, but it's irrelavent as the 2nd is an individual right, not a militia right. So again, I repeat, the right enumerated in the 2nd is "unconnected" from the militia, and I'm not going to entertain those that continue to try and connect the two, they are as "unconnected" as "unconnected" as it is for one to be required to work a day job where they wear a shinny star on their uniform to exercise the enumerated individual right. Your continued insistance to connect the militia with the right enumerated in the 2nd is simply flawed, no other right requires 'training' and thus the 2nd should be no different!
  16. The militia is not and has never been the whole of the people, one can argue it should have been or be but the fact remains it never was. Again, the 2nd is "an individual right unconnected with militia service" "unconnected" being the keword here. Thus any talk of training or requirements or what is good for a militia is also "unconnected" from individuals exercising their individial right that is "unconnected" to the militia. Again, the right enumerated in the 2nd is "unconnected" from the militia, and I'm not going to entertain those that continue to try and connect the two, they are as "unconnected" as "unconnected" as it is for one to be required to work a day job where they wear a shinny star on their uniform to exercise the enumerated individual right.
  17. If one was part of the militia, a militia that was to be called upon to serve the country for military purposes and defense, that paper certainly gives insight of what may/should be expected of that militia to be able to actually defend against an opposing military, but... We are talking about the individual right ot keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution, not what should be expected of those conscripted to militia service, thus I don't see how it has any bearing on individuals exercising their 2nd protected rights for their own individual self defense. Byond that Scalia says it best https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738
  18. Your analogy misses the target, it should say something like firearm trianing is as important to exercising 2nd as is being educated on the political issues and the candidates is to voting, and a jurer having at least a basic legal understanding is to jury duty. But, in all three cases none should be mandated and mandatory to exercise a right. That said our founding fathers were well aware that there would be 'weapon stupid' people owning arms, this is not some new phenomenon. Weapon stupid people existed even back then, the fact our Founding Father never enacted a law mandating training falls inline with Bruen that they accepted there will be bad actors and bad actions that comes with the right but chose not burden the right with and requirements that would potentially deny or burden the right to the 'good' masses.
  19. Mental fitness should be determined by the courts based on multiple opinions of doctors that have evaluated said person, with a right of the person to defend themselves before being found 'guilty' of being mentaly unfit. And there should also be a mandatory and streamlined re-evaluation process, as some mental issues are temporary, others not so. I also feel as a nation we need to evaluate and draw a line on different mental issues as to how much medication one can be popping for it, to be ruled mentaly fit or unfi. It's one thing to have minor depression and if you skip a pill you might lay in bed all day crying vs a schizophrenic that has the potential to go off the deep end and into rubber room crazy status if they are off their meds. I have said before and I will keeps saying it, there is a mental health issue in this country and the current 'script them pills and send them on their way lose in society, as fixed' modus operandi of the medical community needs some serious re-evaluation.
  20. That isn't exactly the case here though, how often it's prosecuted (especially in TX) could be argued, but the qualifiers in regard to unlicensed carrry are connected with 'or' in their trespass law, meaning if it was posted and you entered with a license, that is a criminal act even without being asked to leave. For those with a license to carry, the law is a little different, but it still considers a sign posted as written notice and only requires entry to be criminal, as it also doesn't require the second qualifier of being asked to before it becomes a criminal act, just the mere act of entry when posted becomes a criminal act. I would like to add the red below is clear a mud, as it doesn't say that this card or document has to be specifically handed to the person vs being displayed somewhere As Soundguy said "Texas seems to be a complicated and possibly confusing state." as the signage/trespass law appears to favor the land owner quite a bit and the lack of actually having to be asked to leave is a slippery slope. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/pe/htm/pe.30.htm#30.05
  21. As I said... That said... 30.05(c) is interesting in that it does not necessitate a location for the notice signage That to me is quite open to interpretation, would a general policy sign on the property stating the Code of Conduct be enough to enforce? I'm guessijng probably, as to the best of my knowledge you don't actually need a 'valid' legal reason (short of discrimination) to demand someone leave and not tresspass on property you control.
  22. I beg to differ, it's a Simon Mall, they are gun free, even thier outdoor air ones, you could argue about how enforceable or legally binding it is or what not based on signage, but regardless it's still a gun free zone by Simon Mall policy. https://www.simon.com/legal/code-of-conduct https://www.premiumoutlets.com/outlet/allen
  23. We still don't have the manifesto from the Nashville shooter either, excuse after excuse, so TX is not unique it delaying and withholding info. We can also look at old instances like the Vegas shooting, it took the Vegas police about 2 years to release all their documents, and it took the FBI 5+ years to release theirs. Although TX may drag their feet and play games, they are hardly unique in doing so.
  24. I would fully beg to differ that it's a "Texas thing" to label a mass shooter a "white supremacist neo-nazi" or hold back shooting details... I would argue it seems to be the new MO in these events, even when the killer is dead and there is no risk of tainting a jury, they still refuse to release details like manifestos and other relavant details to set the record straight. Since you work in MSM, curious, what is your network saying about this guy? Are they talking about what appears to be a Texas Tango Blast prison/gang tattoo on his hand, or 'the patch' apparently on his chest that makes him an apparent hispanic white supremacist neo-nazi, or are they blaming the gun?
×
×
  • Create New...