Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 14th, 2017, 03:11 PM #261
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 181
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Which is precisely why the denial of cert was improper.




The circumstances of the arrest seem to moot the question. Read: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=2006

Okay, so your claim now amounts to one that someone will have to challenge a licensing requirement specifically on open carry, and do so by getting arrested for carrying openly without a license.

If the law in question says, as the Maryland statute did, "open or concealed", do you believe that fact alone will "taint" the case so as to cause the Supreme Court to deny cert? My question is: how "pure" does the case actually have to be before the Supreme Court will deign from on high to grant cert to it?

Where's the Supreme Court's demand for such purity as regards any other Constitutional right?
Ok, I remember this one. Williams was hiding his firearm in the bushes. My god, if people only knew their 4th Amendment rights...Anyway,..maybe the court didn't take the case because the 2nd Amendment hadn't been incorporated to apply to the states at the time of his arrest. No denial of cert objection from any of our 5 guys should tell you something. Yes,...as far as licensing goes, a state can license concealed carry and not open carry. So challenging a license for concealed carry would be quite foolish. Heller could have challenged the license requirements to possess a firearm within his home with his civil action, but failed to do so...But I'm sure that had more to do with future litigation possibilities on the part of Gura, than anything else. We will certainly find out about licensing a right with the Norman v Florida open carry case, won't we.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2017, 03:21 PM #262
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Ok, I remember this one. Williams was hiding his firearm in the bushes. My god, if people only knew their 4th Amendment rights...Anyway,..maybe the court didn't take the case because the 2nd Amendment hadn't been incorporated to apply to the states at the time of his arrest.
If that were a legitimate basis, then the lower courts would have dismissed the entire 2nd Amendment argument on that basis alone. No, I don't think that flies here.


Quote:
No denial of cert objection from any of our 5 guys should tell you something. Yes,...as far as licensing goes, a state can license concealed carry and not open carry. So challenging a license for concealed carry would be quite foolish.
Right. But both Williams and Woollard were with respect to a license that covers open carry as well. And yet, the Court refused both cases.

Why do you insist that the Supreme Court is happy to disparage the right to carry openly merely because the law in question happens to cover concealed carry, when the Court can selectively strike text from the law (here, it could strike the open carry provision while leaving the concealed provision intact)?


Quote:
Heller could have challenged the license requirements to possess a firearm within his home with his civil action, but failed to do so...But I'm sure that had more to do with future litigation possibilities on the part of Gura, than anything else.
I do agree that it is regrettable that Heller didn't pursue the licensing aspect, but I can understand why: doing so could easily have resulted in a loss of the entire case. Far better to secure the individual right and leave licensing for later than to risk the individual right in a quest for more.


Quote:
We will certainly find out about licensing a right with the Norman v Florida open carry case, won't we.
That depends on how you'll interpret SCOTUS' inevitable denial of cert.

If SCOTUS does indeed deny cert, what conclusions will you draw from that?
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2017, 03:22 PM #263
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That's true, but it did so because it was determining whether or not the right was an individual one, was attempting to determine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, etc.

Nowhere in Heller v DC did the Court say anything about replacing the current public safety scheme with the historical one. Indeed, that case overturned the law because it conflicted with the right, not because the law conflicted with the historical approach to public safety.

Indeed, Heller was won on the basis of arguments which you are saying we should now abandon.


Heller stands for the opposite of what you say here. The Court didn't address public safety at all in that case.
Your now making things up. I have never said anything about replacing one public safety scheme with another, nor have I said that we should abandon what Heller said. Heller addressed one part of the right. We need to look at the other part, the one where the citizens (individuals) actively take part in public safety. Historically public safety was provided by two organizations; the military and by the people themselves. After we wrote the constitution, the world determined that public safety was better provided by a police force rather than the military. That does not negate the other organization, the people.

The Court did address public safety. "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No. That the government doesn't protect any individual doesn't mean that the main component of public safety is about the individual. Indeed, the courts have explicitly stated that the government's duty to public safety explicitly excludes a duty to the individual, while they also uphold "public safety" laws despite the danger they impose upon individuals, which clearly must mean that the courts view the main component of public safety as excluding the individual. Were that not the case, "public safety" laws would be unable to stand in the face of danger they impose upon the individual.

Put another way, it is a flat-out contradiction to claim that the government has a "compelling interest" in public safety while it simultaneously has a "compelling interest" in supporting "public safety" laws which endanger individuals, unless "public safety" either excludes individual safety or has something other than individual safety as its primary component.


The government is the means by which the law is executed. If the government has no duty to the safety of the individual, then the law cannot either, since it would otherwise mean that the law would codify something the government has no duty to implement. But if the law doesn't have any duty to the safety of the individual, then "public safety" cannot possibly have the individual as its primary component, since "public safety" is something the government, and thus the law, has a "compelling interest" in. One cannot have a "compelling interest" in something while simultaneously having no duty towards its primary component.
You can't see that there is not any contradictions. The only contradiction that exists is the one you create; the public is apparently not composed of individuals.

You claim that public safety laws somehow endanger individuals, but fail to realize that there has been no evidence presented to support that claim. All that has been claimed is that there is an individual right to self defense. Additionally I am not sure why that matters because there is no duty to protect individuals so any danger is irrelevant.

The government does have a compelling interest in public safety. Historically speaking this means both the military and the citizens. Today it means the police and the citizens. If they support the police and not the citizen, then the police become part of the problem and public safety is not achieved. I fail to see any contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Oh, I agree with you on that, but I don't see why a court would agree with you on that. The court would demand evidence in support of your position that an armed citizenry can better provide for public safety than can the police alone. But that is precisely the statistical argument that you say we cannot win.

So again, upon what basis would you counter the government's argument that their laws must stand because they exist for public safety reasons, and the government has a "compelling interest" in public safety?
I don't need nor do I claim that my position is better. You simply can't take the option away because that is why the amendment was codified and the problem still exists.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2017, 06:24 PM #264
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Your now making things up. I have never said anything about replacing one public safety scheme with another,
The current public safety scheme is that the government provides for public safety, and that's all.

What you're talking about is replacing that (you can call it "augmenting" it if you wish, but inasmuch as we're talking about striking laws in order to achieve it, replacement is much more accurate) with government plus the citizenry.


Quote:
nor have I said that we should abandon what Heller said.
No, you didn't say that. What you said is that we should abandon the individual right violation argument, which is precisely what got us the win in Heller.


Quote:
Heller addressed one part of the right. We need to look at the other part, the one where the citizens (individuals) actively take part in public safety. Historically public safety was provided by two organizations; the military and by the people themselves. After we wrote the constitution, the world determined that public safety was better provided by a police force rather than the military.
No, the world has determined that public safety is better provided by a police force rather than the citizenry. It's gotten to the point where people in, e.g., the UK, cannot even lawfully defend themselves with threat of force to a prospective attacker.


Quote:
That does not negate the other organization, the people.
It most certainly does!


Quote:
The Court did address public safety. "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
True. For some reason, that part of the decision didn't come to mind when I was looking for public safety discussions in it.


Quote:
You can't see that there is not any contradictions. The only contradiction that exists is the one you create; the public is apparently not composed of individuals.
That is the logical consequence of the current jurisprudence. The current jurisprudence is that the government has no duty to the safety of individuals and that the government has a "compelling interest" in laws which put individuals at risk.

To insist otherwise is to insist that current jurisprudence is internally contradictory. Not that I would disagree with that characterization, mind you, because I agree with your definition of public safety. The problem is that the courts can't agree with your definition of public safety, because their jurisprudence contradicts it.


Quote:
You claim that public safety laws somehow endanger individuals, but fail to realize that there has been no evidence presented to support that claim.
You mean one has to actually present evidence that someone who is unarmed against an attacker is less safe than is one who is armed?

But in any case, I believe such evidence has been presented in past carry cases. The courts have remained unpersuaded by it.


Quote:
All that has been claimed is that there is an individual right to self defense. Additionally I am not sure why that matters because there is no duty to protect individuals so any danger is irrelevant.
But that's exactly my point. If the danger to individuals arising from the imposition of laws is irrelevant while those very same laws have "public safety" as their compelling justification, then the term "public safety" cannot have individual safety as its primary component, because you get a contradiction otherwise.


Quote:
The government does have a compelling interest in public safety. Historically speaking this means both the military and the citizens. Today it means the police and the citizens.
No, today it's military and police, with the military providing public safety against threats from outside the country, and the police providing public safety against threats from within the country.


Quote:
If they support the police and not the citizen, then the police become part of the problem and public safety is not achieved. I fail to see any contradiction.
That is true if you define "public safety" as primarily composed of individual safety. But the courts have implicitly defined "public safety" as excluding that, because the current jurisprudence would otherwise be inherently contradictory.


Quote:
I don't need nor do I claim that my position is better. You simply can't take the option away because that is why the amendment was codified and the problem still exists.
You can if you say that public safety trumps the right. And that's exactly what the court decisions amount to (well, more precisely, that it trumps the right in public for every case save for when the right is completely and explicitly foreclosed. Even the possibility of some individuals being able to exercise the right under some circumstances, no matter how limited, is sufficient circumstance for "public safety" to trump the right). If public safety trumps the right and public safety does not include individual safety, then the law stands even if the 2nd Amendment was codified for the purpose of public safety.

Ultimately, that is the problem here: the courts have decided that "public safety", whatever it is, trumps all rights, including the right to arms, at least when it comes to public exercise of the right. That is so even if the protection of the right was intended to improve public safety.

Since public safety trumps all else in public, it follows that the court will have to decide the issue on the basis of which alternative (keep the law or scrap the law) improves public safety the most. But now we're right back to that statistical argument that we cannot win.


And how will your argument change, say, an "intermediate scrutiny" analysis? That is, after all, what the courts have decided is the means by which to decide whether the law in question stands or falls.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2017, 03:12 PM #265
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
Your problem is that you don't seem to know what the public safety means. This is because you seem to believe that it is a derived term rather than a primary term. You are also ignoring Heller because you are ignoring individual safety (self defense).

Public safety means exactly what it says, it is about the public's safety, the safety of every individual. When you argue an individual right you are ignoring any relationship to society. That would be appropriate if there was no relationship between an individual and the public, but that relationship is very important given that individual rights can get curtailed because of public safety.

With other individual rights, the right and public safety are two independent things. The curtailment occurs only when the right adversely acts on public safety. With self defense, the two are primarily the same. They are not exactly the same, but the other factors tend to be small. Curtailment of self defense leads to curtailment of public safety because of the relationship between the two. You chose to ignore this relationship. I believe you should accentuate this relationship.

The government argues that guns are the problem (negatively affects public safety) and cites statistics. Our side tries to say they are not as bad as the government says. This is the statistical argument and you can't win because the government is sort of right. The biggest problem with the argument is that it is a red herring. Guns are not the problem, certain people are. I do not need statistic to demonstrate this. The negative affects the government cites are considered criminal acts. Law abiding people, by definition, don't commit those criminal acts.

Because of the relationship between self defense and public safety (that you want to ignore), any curtailment of self defense negatively affects public safety. A negative relationship would fail intermediate scrutiny. Without this argument, the government will win because bad people with guns do negatively affect public safety.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2017, 09:22 PM #266
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Your problem is that you don't seem to know what the public safety means. This is because you seem to believe that it is a derived term rather than a primary term.
No, it's not necessarily a derived term. The logic I'm using is merely showing what it must be defined as in order for current jurisprudence to not be logically contradictory to it.

If it were a primary term that meant what you say it means, then the government would be compelled to refuse to enforce laws that impose upon individual safety. But the opposite is the case: the government is compelled to enforce those laws despite their impact to individual safety.


Quote:
You are also ignoring Heller because you are ignoring individual safety (self defense).
No, I'm not ignoring Heller at all. It codifies an individual right which is based on self-defense. Heller says that "certain" policy choices are off the table as a result, but does not say which ones save for the specific combination that it forbade.


Quote:
Public safety means exactly what it says, it is about the public's safety, the safety of every individual.
Yes, it's about the public's safety. For the definition to be consistent with current jurisprudence, it has to be solely about the group's safety.

Want evidence? If individual safety were the primary component of "public safety", then the draft would be challengeable on the basis of the danger it poses to "public safety", precisely because a draft forces individuals into immense danger to their individual lives. And yet, it seems nobody has thought to challenge the Selective Service Act on that basis. At least, I cannot seem to find any such case, or any case where the question of the Act's effects on public safety were disputed. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11 - Supreme Court 1905 at 29 is the closest thing I can find to a case that's on point here: "The liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, this court has said, consists, in part, in the right of a person "to live and work where he will," Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; and yet he may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense."


Quote:
When you argue an individual right you are ignoring any relationship to society. That would be appropriate if there was no relationship between an individual and the public, but that relationship is very important given that individual rights can get curtailed because of public safety.

With other individual rights, the right and public safety are two independent things. The curtailment occurs only when the right adversely acts on public safety.
No, this is not the case at all. For instance, the failure to uphold the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure most certainly can impact individual safety. See, e.g., "no knock" raids that can and have resulted in death of or grave injury to the individual being searched.

But I do agree that the right to arms is more directly connected to public safety (as you and I would define it, not as the court apparently has defined it) than any other right.


Quote:
With self defense, the two are primarily the same. They are not exactly the same, but the other factors tend to be small. Curtailment of self defense leads to curtailment of public safety because of the relationship between the two. You chose to ignore this relationship. I believe you should accentuate this relationship.
I don't ignore the relationship. I agree the relationship is there. The problem is that you have to prove to the court that the relationship is there, because the government is sitting there proving through statistics that the inverse relationship is there.

And once you prove that relationship is there, you then have to somehow convince the court that your proof of the positive relationship between the two somehow exceeds the government's proof of the inverse relationship. How exactly are you going to do that if not through some sort of statistical argument?

So again we're right back to the problem of the statistical argument. I see no way you can possibly avoid that if you insist on making any kind of public safety argument, even one that has the historical roots of the 2nd Amendment as its basis.


Quote:
The government argues that guns are the problem (negatively affects public safety) and cites statistics. Our side tries to say they are not as bad as the government says. This is the statistical argument and you can't win because the government is sort of right. The biggest problem with the argument is that it is a red herring. Guns are not the problem, certain people are. I do not need statistic to demonstrate this. The negative affects the government cites are considered criminal acts. Law abiding people, by definition, don't commit those criminal acts.
You really believe the argument you're putting forth here (that guns aren't the problem and that criminals are) hasn't been made in front of a court?? I'll have to review the briefs in some of the more notable carry cases, but I strongly suspect that they have been made, with one exception: the tie back to public safety. Absent that, the plaintiffs have been relying on the notion that the government is supposed to provide substantial valid evidence proving its case, and what you're saying here is that the evidence the government proffers is invalid. And yet, the courts have seen fit to accept that evidence despite that invalidity.

I agree that the tie back to public safety is highly desirable, and do suspect that nobody has made that particular part of the argument. But again, that tie requires supporting evidence. Where, exactly, do you propose to get that evidence?

Worse, if the court accepts the government's evidence despite is invalidity, why do you believe that adding a tie between the right to arms and public safety is going to suddenly change the court's decision as regards the validity of the government's evidence?


Quote:
Because of the relationship between self defense and public safety (that you want to ignore), any curtailment of self defense negatively affects public safety. A negative relationship would fail intermediate scrutiny. Without this argument, the government will win because bad people with guns do negatively affect public safety.
Right. But that argument alone will not win the case unless it is backed by evidence that is even stronger, in the eyes of the court, than the government's "evidence" that the relationship between exercise of the right and public safety is a negative one (i.e., the public is less safe if it is allowed to exercise the right than if it is not allowed to).

Last edited by kcbrown; August 15th, 2017 at 10:32 PM.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2017, 11:36 AM #267
Elliotte's Avatar
Elliotte Elliotte is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Loudoun County VA
Posts: 1,093
Elliotte Elliotte is offline
Senior Member
Elliotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Loudoun County VA
Posts: 1,093
"Public safety" as defined by the courts is the general safety of the public at large, not of any individual. If it was about the safety of individuals, we never would have gotten Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever attempted to fight the "public safety is the job of the police" reasoning by using Castle Rock? Arguing that if the govt isn't required to be concerned with a person's safety individually (Castle Rock), but with the safety of the group as a whole (current PS definition) then that means the individual is responsible determining how to protect themselves.
Elliotte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2017, 03:43 PM #268
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
jcutonilli jcutonilli is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 413
It is interesting that you bring up the draft since it proves my points. It demonstrates that citizens do in fact provide public safety, which is consistent with the historical precedent. This is something you continually deny. Public safety is not about AN individual, it is about a collection of individualS. With respect to the draft, AN individual may be placed in danger so that the collection of individualS can be protected.

When individual rights get curtailed, it is about particular instances (AN individual) that negatively impact society in general (individualS). When you talk about Heller all you are really talking about AN individual. When the government talks about public safety they are talking about individualS. This situation is not any different than the draft. It does not matter how strong the argument is for the individual. An individual loses when there is a benefit to society.

The government's evidence is not invalid. They are factually correct that criminals negatively affect public safety (based on past events). In order to determine any benefit to the law requires extrapolation beyond the data. This requires opinions and the court does not want to second guess the opinion of the legislature. They ultimately determine that the gun is the problem and should be restricted. When you frame the issue around the person, you can take advantage of existing laws to demonstrate that society is protected from the action. It forces the government to answer why one law will work but another similar law won't It also becomes a legal question rather than a judgment. It forces the government to prove that a law abiding citizen negatively affect public safety. It is not possible to do so because it contradicts the definition of a law abiding citizen.

You do ignore the relationship of self defense to society. While you include AN individual's self defense, you ignore everyone else's self defense. If everyone protected themselves then the entire public is protected. Why do you need statistics to prove this? The fact that the government does not protect individual citizens strengthens this argument. This notion that individual citizens protect society is inherent in the codification of 2A, the historical precedent and your example of the draft. Again no need for stats.
jcutonilli is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2017, 09:33 PM #269
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
It is interesting that you bring up the draft since it proves my points. It demonstrates that citizens do in fact provide public safety, which is consistent with the historical precedent.
No. It demonstrates only that the citizenry provides public safety when in the employ of the government. But that's not the situation we're talking about here.

A member of the military (whether drafted or not) is in the employ of the government. A member of the police is in the employ of the government. The same is true with respect to every other organization that provides public safety in the way the courts currently recognize.

The courts do not recognize that the citizenry at large provides public safety.

I agree with your argument, actually, but again, I don't see how the courts would agree with it.


Quote:
This is something you continually deny. Public safety is not about AN individual, it is about a collection of individualS. With respect to the draft, AN individual may be placed in danger so that the collection of individualS can be protected.

When individual rights get curtailed, it is about particular instances (AN individual) that negatively impact society in general (individualS). When you talk about Heller all you are really talking about AN individual. When the government talks about public safety they are talking about individualS. This situation is not any different than the draft. It does not matter how strong the argument is for the individual. An individual loses when there is a benefit to society.
Yes, exactly. But the courts can easily interpret that to mean that the safety of the individual is irrelevant even in the aggregate, that "public safety" means only the safety of the entire group as a whole independent of the safety of the individuals within. Yes, that would be a ludicrous position for the courts to take, but a position being ludicrous has never stopped them before, so why should it stop them now?

Indeed, the courts (or government) could even use your own aggregation method against you. If public safety includes the aggregate of individual safety, and the safety of the individual is irrelevant, then it follows that the relevance of the safety of the aggregate is the aggregation of the relevance of the safety of each individual within. Since the safety of the individual is irrelevant (meaning its "relevance metric" is zero), the aggregation of that relevance must also be zero, and thus the safety of the individuals in the group, even when aggregated, is irrelevant, thus leaving only the safety of the group as a single entity as being relevant.


Quote:
The government's evidence is not invalid. They are factually correct that criminals negatively affect public safety (based on past events).
The validity of evidence is not context-independent. Its validity depends greatly on the context. The context here is a law which forbids all (well, at least the average law-abiding citizen) from bearing arms in public, and which imposes upon the law-abiding more than anyone else.

The government's assertion is that the law in question improves public safety, and it justifies that assertion on the basis of the evidence we speak of. It is that which is invalid, precisely because the evidence the government provides is with respect to criminals who do not obey the law rather than the rest of the citizenry who do. That would be no different from "proving" that adults shouldn't be allowed to drive because of the dangers that are posed by children who drive.


Quote:
In order to determine any benefit to the law requires extrapolation beyond the data. This requires opinions and the court does not want to second guess the opinion of the legislature. They ultimately determine that the gun is the problem and should be restricted. When you frame the issue around the person, you can take advantage of existing laws to demonstrate that society is protected from the action. It forces the government to answer why one law will work but another similar law won't It also becomes a legal question rather than a judgment. It forces the government to prove that a law abiding citizen negatively affect public safety. It is not possible to do so because it contradicts the definition of a law abiding citizen.
How does it do that (force the government to prove that a law abiding citizen negatively affects public safety)? It does that only if the court actually insists on it. But the court is what determines whether the evidence is valid for the law under consideration, and the courts have determined that the evidence in question is valid as applied to the law in question despite the fact that it is based on activity by members of the public (criminals) who are not represented by the plaintiffs (who represent law-abiding citizens). As such, why should they suddenly change their view of the government's evidence on the basis of the relationship you point out?


Quote:
You do ignore the relationship of self defense to society. While you include AN individual's self defense, you ignore everyone else's self defense. If everyone protected themselves then the entire public is protected.
Yes, that is the aggregation argument. But it presumes that, firstly, the protective effects you're talking about outweigh the protective effects (whatever they may be) of forbidding the citizenry from being armed in public and, secondly, that the court will accept your definition of public safety (the aggregation of individual safety) in the first place.

On what basis do you believe the court will entertain either notion, most especially if you offer no evidence supporting the former?


Quote:
Why do you need statistics to prove this? The fact that the government does not protect individual citizens strengthens this argument. This notion that individual citizens protect society is inherent in the codification of 2A, the historical precedent and your example of the draft. Again no need for stats.
Yes, it strengthens it under your definition of public safety. But your definition of public safety is not necessarily the one the courts subscribe to. It is a logical definition, and one the courts should subscribe to, but upon what basis should we believe they will, most especially if they're composed of people who prefer to see the citizenry disarmed?
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2017, 04:56 AM #270
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 921
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is online now
Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 921
I really like it when our legal eagles go back and forth like this so I can learn something new. I hope the SCOTUS does grant cert in this case or at least a PC. Speaking of which what do our legal eagles think about SCOTUS might issue a PC instead of hearing this case like they did with Caetano vs MA?
motorcoachdoug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2017, 07:08 AM #271
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,546
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 3,546
I doubt we would get a PC affirming OC or anything major like that.
OTOH the FL Supremes basically manufactured the logic behind the legislatures banning of OC. The state simply stated it was a "policy choice", nothing more. Not sure if it can be sent back with instructions that a "policy choice" ain't gonna cut it.
press1280 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2017, 02:13 PM #272
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 181
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If that were a legitimate basis, then the lower courts would have dismissed the entire 2nd Amendment argument on that basis alone. No, I don't think that flies here.




Right. But both Williams and Woollard were with respect to a license that covers open carry as well. And yet, the Court refused both cases.

Why do you insist that the Supreme Court is happy to disparage the right to carry openly merely because the law in question happens to cover concealed carry, when the Court can selectively strike text from the law (here, it could strike the open carry provision while leaving the concealed provision intact)?




I do agree that it is regrettable that Heller didn't pursue the licensing aspect, but I can understand why: doing so could easily have resulted in a loss of the entire case. Far better to secure the individual right and leave licensing for later than to risk the individual right in a quest for more.




That depends on how you'll interpret SCOTUS' inevitable denial of cert.

If SCOTUS does indeed deny cert, what conclusions will you draw from that?
That's interesting...Hmmm, the SCOTUS can't ignore or refute a question of licensing in a petition to the court, but they can scratch a concealed carry condition within a statute that involves both open and concealed carry. That doesn't seem right, when stare decisis dictates that a right can not be licensed. Also, when a petition indicates generally that the 2nd Amendment protects both open and concealed carry...How is that not an error when the right only protects open carry? In both of those cases, it appears..at least to me, that there was no injured party to invoke a grant.

A denial of cert in Norman, will clearly show that some justices of the 5 that signed onto Heller,...are not faithful to its reasoning. Certainly, they are operating in a rogue fashion in complete disregard to their oath of office.

When the SCOTUS takes the Norman case,...at 1st conference, what will you draw from that?
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2017, 03:06 PM #273
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
That's interesting...Hmmm, the SCOTUS can't ignore or refute a question of licensing in a petition to the court, but they can scratch a concealed carry condition within a statute that involves both open and concealed carry. That doesn't seem right, when stare decisis dictates that a right can not be licensed. Also, when a petition indicates generally that the 2nd Amendment protects both open and concealed carry...How is that not an error when the right only protects open carry? In both of those cases, it appears..at least to me, that there was no injured party to invoke a grant.
No, I was saying that the courts can scratch the open carry portion of the law, thus leaving the law to govern and restrict only concealed carry (the law is a restriction with a licensing exception. Striking "open" from it would result in concealed carry being forbidden except for those who hold a license, and open carry would be ungoverned at that point). My argument here is that this is an option that was available to the courts in both Williams and Woollard, and the Supreme Court denied cert anyway despite that option being available to them.

This is why I say now, before Norman has been dispensed with, that the Court will refuse cert to Norman. It has had ample opportunity to uphold open carry as a real right and has refused to.


Quote:
A denial of cert in Norman, will clearly show that some justices of the 5 that signed onto Heller,...are not faithful to its reasoning. Certainly, they are operating in a rogue fashion in complete disregard to their oath of office.
Agreed.


Quote:
When the SCOTUS takes the Norman case,...at 1st conference, what will you draw from that?
That the open carry guys were clearly right about SCOTUS' motives, what they were waiting for, etc. There would be no other good reason for SCOTUS to take that case, really.
kcbrown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2017, 01:25 PM #274
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 328
GlocksAndPatriots GlocksAndPatriots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, I was saying that the courts can scratch the open carry portion of the law, thus leaving the law to govern and restrict only concealed carry (the law is a restriction with a licensing exception. Striking "open" from it would result in concealed carry being forbidden except for those who hold a license, and open carry would be ungoverned at that point). My argument here is that this is an option that was available to the courts in both Williams and Woollard, and the Supreme Court denied cert anyway despite that option being available to them.

This is why I say now, before Norman has been dispensed with, that the Court will refuse cert to Norman. It has had ample opportunity to uphold open carry as a real right and has refused to.




Agreed.




That the open carry guys were clearly right about SCOTUS' motives, what they were waiting for, etc. There would be no other good reason for SCOTUS to take that case, really.
The only way SCOTUS takes Norman is if Ginsburg drops dead. I'd love it to be true, but odds aren't good, given that the old hag has made it this far.

GlocksAndPatriots is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service