The right to carry arms is winning big, in one chart

[Mr H]

If I am not mistaken I recently saw a post in another thread that Maryland still has a sodomy statute on the books, and posted it! No kidding! Mom and the GA are so progressive.

Chairman Martinet O'MAOlley can blow me...

oh... wait.........

 

[joppaj]

Only the Washington Post can combine right to carry and sodomy in the same article.

"It is interesting to compare the above chart to the map showing the demise of laws against “sodomy” (oral or anal sex), between 1970 and 2003. On the eve of Lawrence v. Texas, there were still 13 states which had sodomy statutes."

I hate the WaPo, but this is just a hosted blog. The author is this guy:

David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C; and Adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 15 books and 90 scholarly journal articles.

 

[BradMacc82]

Chairman Martinet O'MAOlley can blow me...

oh... wait.........

You could do better anyways.

I wouldn't let that piece of Frosh put his lips on my dogs O'Malley (a$$hole).

 

[Patrick]

I hate the WaPo, but this is just a hosted blog. The author is this guy:

And Dave is writing under the guise of "The Volokh Conspiracy", brought about by Eugene Volokh; Volokh is a rather well-known legal scholar and has been quoted in-numerous times by the Supreme Court on everything from guns to ObamaCare*. VC is really well known blog for legal nerds, and conservatives tend to think it liberal, while progressives think it a right-wing tea party. So basically it runs about dead center libertarian (little 'l').

I think (almost sure) that VC is not even "hosted" by the WP. They outright bought the rights to Volokh's site.

It's driving the liberal readers nuts, too.


* EDIT: I think Volokh was quoted four times in the recent Peruta ruling. He's definitely not anti-gun, even if his views on what will probably survive scrutiny is not everything we'd like. But I'd suggest his analysis is in line with the current court, if for no other reason they keep referring to his papers on the second amendment.

 

[MigraineMan]

If I am not mistaken I recently saw a post in another thread that Maryland still has a sodomy statute on the books, and posted it! No kidding! Mom and the GA are so progressive.

I posted a thread about the law and the excessive penalties last year ...

... and I'll note that March 14th is just around the corner.

 

[MDFF2008]

A sodomy statue would be unenforceable.

 

[Patrick]

A sodomy statue would be unenforceable.

Sodomy can be used as an enhancer in a non-consensual case. In other words, sodomy between consenting adults is fine. But "Forced Sodomy" is not and is a consideration for enhancement. OK...I don't want to go further in the cases it applies to (and am not asking speculation here), but in some cases sodomy is the only "act" that could transpire. States keep these laws on the books and the courts just ignore the unenforceable parts. Because to my knowledge, there is no precedent anywhere in the US that says sodomy is legal in a non-consensual context.

So thinking of this upside down, the MD sodomy law is enforceable outside the context that is unconstitutional. Courts have struck down enforcement between legally consenting adults as unconstitutional...so that leaves "everything else" available to be charged. If a perv goes after a kid, then MD can hit them with a sodomy charge and it will be legit.

For instance, in October 2012 Anthony Maurice Cottle of Owings Mills was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of a minor, fourth-degree sex offense, second-degree assault, third-degree sex offense and sodomy.

These laws are targeted for repeal by many in the LGBT community because they were often victims of over-zealous targeting (at least until Lawrence v Texas). I understand their desire to make them go away. The problem is many states (including Maryland) have not completely updated or analyzed the effects it has on sexual assault cases. For instance, I think it is still the case that MD's rape statues have significant gaps in their application to cases we would all agree were "rape", and this is usually because of the age of the victims. So right now the laws have use, though the historical reminders are a bit of a scab.



What this has to do with the chart on the right to bear arms is beyond me. I used to combat thread drift...and look at me now!

Signing off for now...

 

[Brooklyn]

And Dave is writing under the guise of "The Volokh Conspiracy", brought about by Eugene Volokh; Volokh is a rather well-known legal scholar and has been quoted in-numerous times by the Supreme Court on everything from guns to ObamaCare*. VC is really well known blog for legal nerds, and conservatives tend to think it liberal, while progressives think it a right-wing tea party. So basically it runs about dead center libertarian (little 'l').

I think (almost sure) that VC is not even "hosted" by the WP. They outright bought the rights to Volokh's site.

It's driving the liberal readers nuts, too.


* EDIT: I think Volokh was quoted four times in the recent Peruta ruling. He's definitely not anti-gun, even if his views on what will probably survive scrutiny is not everything we'd like. But I'd suggest his analysis is in line with the current court, if for no other reason they keep referring to his papers on the second amendment.

He is a very influential writer -- It will be sad to see the WP destroy the blog. It can still be read but only in rss form as the WP paywall now blocks full access.

I will not pay anything to the WP... so sad ..

 

[Patrick]

He is a very influential writer -- It will be sad to see the WP destroy the blog. It can still be read but only in rss form as the WP paywall now blocks full access.

I will not pay anything to the WP... so sad ..

Yeah, I question VC on that one. They should have required it be open.

I don't understand people who think things get better after limiting your "brand" or product, so to speak.

 

[Tyeraxus]

Yeah, I question VC on that one. They should have required it be open.

I don't understand people who think things get better after limiting your "brand" or product, so to speak.

Dollars to donuts Bezos threw a ton of cash at him. And to be honest, I'm not complaining. Between Volokh and the addition of Radley Balko (guy that wrote "Rise of the Warrior Cop"), I think Bezos is forcing WaPo out of its rut as a blatant cheerleader for the Democrat party.

 

[rob]

If I am not mistaken I recently saw a post in another thread that Maryland still has a sodomy statute on the books, and posted it! No kidding! Mom and the GA are so progressive.

Does having your own head up your ass count as sodomy? If so, someone should prosecute Frosh.

Rob

 

[Biggfoot44]

Back in the day of my edumacation , I had sitting judges and former ASA's tell me the main times sodomy was charged was when the situations were really rape and/ or 1st Degree Sexual Assult , but they were iffy on proving all the elements , where as they could get Sodomy conviction and/ or use as leverage to get a plea to somthing else.

One of those things where even they knew it was a crappy law , but trust us , we will only use the bad law for good ends.

 

[Benanov]

These laws are targeted for repeal by many in the LGBT community because they were often victims of over-zealous targeting (at least until Lawrence v Texas). I understand their desire to make them go away. The problem is many states (including Maryland) have not completely updated or analyzed the effects it has on sexual assault cases. For instance, I think it is still the case that MD's rape statues have significant gaps in their application to cases we would all agree were "rape", and this is usually because of the age of the victims. So right now the laws have use, though the historical reminders are a bit of a scab.

An attempt (not a great one) to compare two sets of victimless crime laws. It makes sense from a libertarian perspective.

One of those things where even they knew it was a crappy law , but trust us , we will only use the bad law for good ends.

That's the main reason I was happy to see it struck down between consensual adults. (I would go so far as to bar it from being applied in Romeo & Juliet situations as well, just to level the playing field)

 

[Patrick]

An attempt (not a great one) to compare two sets of victimless crime laws. It makes sense from a libertarian perspective.

Which was the second victimless crime in my writing? Forced rape?

I was referring to the fact that forcible intercourse with a minor was not considered rape in Maryland just a few years ago. We're not talking two "kids" that are 18/17, but an adult who snatches a kid and does bad things.

Some states don't have rape statutes to cover that situation for kids. Or in other cases, "rape" only covers heterosexual intercourse, but not "other". That is where sodomy laws are being used.

My point was that sodomy laws are (now) correctly being used in those cases where they are not unconstitutional - forced acts. I get how the LGBT community wishes they were gone - and I don't disagree with their aims. The issue is a technical one. Before you can erase them from the books, you need to make sure that the truly evil acts they punish - forcible and coerced assaults - are covered somewhere else.

That's the main reason I was happy to see it struck down between consensual adults. (I would go so far as to bar it from being applied in Romeo & Juliet situations as well, just to level the playing field)

And speaking of straw men, that most certainly includes pedophilia. We should not erase ped laws just because a few "kids" have birthdays a few months apart. There are sure predators out there who console themselves that the consent they think they have came from someone too young to actually give it. They deserve their place in hell. Adjusting the laws for kids whose ages are not disparate (the 'birthday problem') should not be an excuse to let a 20-something start trolling for 16 year olds.

 

[Benanov]

Which was the second victimless crime in my writing? Forced rape?

Who said I was talking about your writing? I was talking about the original article. You asked a question, I answered it.

And speaking of straw men, that most certainly includes pedophilia. We should not erase ped laws just because a few "kids" have birthdays a few months apart. There are sure predators out there who console themselves that the consent they think they have came from someone too young to actually give it. They deserve their place in hell. Adjusting the laws for kids whose ages are not disparate (the 'birthday problem') should not be an excuse to let a 20-something start trolling for 16 year olds.

I said nothing about erasing ped laws. My intent is that there are states with laws on the books where 18/15 hetero is legal and 18/15 homo is a rape charge.

As to the rest of your point: Then the states need to stop relying on bad laws with unintended consequences and get their legislatures to actually pass the laws criminalizing the behavior they actually want to criminalize. I'm not sad about this. I really don't care if a bad law has a good use. Make a good law out of it instead.

 

[Patrick]

Who said I was talking about your writing? I was talking about the original article. You asked a question, I answered it.

OK, that makes a heck of a lot more sense. Sorry I didn't follow your drift.

I said nothing about erasing ped laws. My intent is that there are states with laws on the books where 18/15 hetero is legal and 18/15 homo is a rape charge.

That strikes me as unallowable after Lawrence, and I agree that those kinds of disparities are the reason LGBT folks want all these laws gone, damn the consequences.

As to the rest of your point: Then the states need to stop relying on bad laws with unintended consequences and get their legislatures to actually pass the laws criminalizing the behavior they actually want to criminalize. I'm not sad about this. I really don't care if a bad law has a good use. Make a good law out of it instead.

I think the argument can be made that dropping MD's sodomy law in its entirety would force the hand of the legislature to revisit the current laws they have, and maybe do a better job this time around. I was going at it from the opposite perspective: fix the broken first, then repeal the useless.

History suggests your approach (I assume that is what you were suggesting) is probably more successful than holding out for rational action by irrational actors in the legislature. Forgive my optimism.