Green Truck, Green Hat.

[coinboy]

 

[Slackdaddy]

I guess "Low rise" pant are now "out" for the Weemen?

 

[RFBfromDE]

Green buttons.
I'd hit that!

 

[AlBeight]

NOBODY is going to ask WTF this thread is about? I’m really out of touch I suppose if this makes sense to anyone.

 

[coinboy]

2 hours and 17 minutes in.

 

[AlBeight]

2 hours and 17 minutes in.

Thanks, bizarre reference but now I get it. I watched past that part and in my own ignorance I caught something about the bill that I hadn’t really noticed before - prohibiting carrying in an establishment “licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises”. I get it, like can’t go to Applebees and such, but I just realized I can’t even go pick up my carryout from the local J&P Pizza locale as they have a sit-down dining room and bar? That’s bullsh*t. Picking up carryout has zero to do with consumption of alcohol.

 

[coinboy]

Thanks, bizarre reference but now I get it. I watched past that part and in my own ignorance I caught something about the bill that I hadn’t really noticed before - prohibiting carrying in an establishment “licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises”. I get it, like can’t go to Applebees and such, but I just realized I can’t even go pick up my carryout from the local J&P Pizza locale as they have a sit-down dining room and bar? That’s bullsh*t. Picking up carryout has zero to do with consumption of alcohol.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I was talking to a buddy and I said, "well at least I can still go to Chipotle."

"He said no you can't."



They dispense alcohol for on site consumption.

 

[possumman]

Concealed means concealed --eat where you please - I know I will

 

[RFBfromDE]

The Boy Blunders distraction doesn't even appear in context to his own ridiculous argument;

Analogical Reasoning and the Second Amendment

In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively…

reason.com

In assessing a modern restriction, "this historical inquiry that courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by analogy—a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge." A green truck is not relevantly similar to a green hat if the subject is things you can wear.

I would add that an antebellum ban on carrying a Bowie knife concealed is not relevantly similar to a current ban on possession of a rifle or magazine. As Bruen instructs, we look at "how and why the [modern and historical] regulations burden a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense." Under that test, a modern requirement to register all guns would not be analogous to a historical requirement that a militiaman must exhibit his musket at muster.

While a historical analogue need not be "a dead ringer," Bruen cautions courts not to "uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue," because doing so "risk endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted." The analogies must be from the Founding period and, if they confirm Founding history, from later periods—but not too much later. For example, there were at least some laws at the Founding restricting firearms in polling places, legislative assemblies, and courthouses. Later history can be looked at to confirm whether this matured into an enduring tradition or was instead a dead end that should not be used to define the scope of the right.