Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Go Buy a Hot Dog From This Guy

  1. #1
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    New Yorkers' Gun Rights May Rest on Hot Dog Vendor's Case
    New Supreme Court Ruling Is Cited Repeatedly in City Gun Cases
    By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 1, 2008


    • If New York's strict antigun laws are overturned in the near future, it may be the work of a hot dog vendor.
    The vendor, Daniel Vargas, is due next month in court to fight misdemeanor charges that he kept an unlicensed revolver loaded on a basement shelf in his apartment. The case, which has generated 23 hearings and been heard by no fewer than 10 different judges as it winds through Brooklyn's lowest criminal court, would be of little general interest, except for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.

    Now, suddenly, Mr. Vargas's case, as well as a handful of other cases, are testing the authority of district attorneys to prosecute people for gun possession, a strategy that Mayor Bloomberg has emphasized in his criminal justice policies.

    In about half a dozen New York City cases reviewed by The New York Sun, defense lawyers have filed briefs arguing that the Supreme Court's decision requires the dismissal of gun possession charges against their clients.

    The briefs question the constitutionality of the city's treatment of all unlicensed guns as illegal guns — mere possession of which can be punished by up to 15 years in prison.

    At least two of the cases involve gun arrests during traffic stops. The motions ask New York courts to expand the federal Supreme Court decision to find that the "right to bear arms is not limited to the physical confines of the home," as a Brooklyn lawyer, Andrew Miller, wrote in one such case.

    One state judge, Michael Gary in Brooklyn, has already rejected the Second Amendment claims of one defendant since the Supreme Court decision. The case involved a man accused of possessing a gun while smoking outside a Chinese restaurant.

    But other cases featuring Second Amendment claims involve, like Mr. Vargas's case, allegations of gun possession in the home. In the Bronx, a lawyer for a man named Jose Rivera, who was arrested after police allegedly found marijuana and a .40-caliber pistol in his home, is claiming that he can't be prosecuted for the firearm under the Second Amendment.

    In Brooklyn, a lawyer for a woman named Claudett Monplaisir is saying the Second Amendment protects her from prosecution for gun possession after police found a handgun in her apartment which may have been linked to a nearby shooting. Police say the suspected shooter, who fathered a child with Ms. Monplaisir, had instructed her to hide the gun in her freezer, according to court documents.

    What makes Mr. Vargas's case so singular is that the only issue is the alleged gun. He is not accused of using the gun improperly or of committing any illegal conduct unrelated to its possession. Nor did police find the alleged gun while investigating other crimes, as often happens. For instance, many unlicensed handguns are recovered from homes in the course of responding to domestic violence calls, defense lawyers say.

    Police records indicate that the officer who arrested Mr. Vargas in October 2006 had received "a tip for a location with firearm." According to the police records, Mr. Vargas consented to the search and police found a loaded .38-caliber revolver in a holster sitting on a shelf, with a box of bullets nearby.

    Under New York law, possession of an unregistered gun on the streets in New York City carries a maximum penalty of up to 15 years in prison, while possession of such a gun at home is treated as a misdemeanor, which rarely carries jail time for a first offense.

    Mr. Vargas's legal aid attorney, Laura Guthrie, wrote in a brief that Mr. Vargas denies possessing any gun or ammunition. The court brief goes on to say that even assuming the allegations are taken as true, the prosecution, "violates the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment."

    "Here the government does not allege that Mr. Vargas possessed the weapon with intent to use it unlawfully, or outside of his home," she wrote. "Mr. Vargas is accused of keeping a gun in his home. This conduct is protected by the individual right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment." The brief, filed last year, cites the appellate court ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in the June decision.

    A prosecutor from the Brooklyn district attorney's office, David Morisset, had argued, before the Supreme Court ruling was issued, that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right to keep a gun unless the owner was a part of a militia.

    In a decision last year rejecting Mr. Vargas's Second Amendment claims, a city judge, Alexander Jeong, focused on another point, which is that Mr. Vargas had never sought a gun license.

    But that reason for dismissing Mr. Vargas's Second Amendment claim may have been weakened somewhat since the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to keep a gun at home.

    "The question now becomes which defendants with guns in their homes should benefit from that Constitutional right," a criminal defense lawyer and former president of the city bar, Barry Kamins, said. "One issue becomes whether to allow defendants to make these types of challenges even though they never applied for the permit."

    Ms. Guthrie has argued that it should not matter whether Mr. Vargas applied for a permit.

    "Mr. Vargas is alleged, in essence, not to have submitted himself to the complete discretion and the extraordinary power of the New York City Police Commissioner," she wrote. "The Second Amendment does not permit such interference."

    New York's permitting system itself could come under scrutiny as these issues in criminal cases are litigated.

    Mayor Bloomberg and other city officials have said that the Supreme Court decision does not threaten New York City's regulations, which require that all gun owners go through a lengthy and costly licensing process. Yet, some gun rights proponents and defense lawyers say that New York's licensing system is so burdensome as to be unconstitutional.

    "An average poor guy who's particularly vulnerable to burglary or break-ins is going to have a hard time getting a license," said a legal aid attorney, Steven Wasserman, who wrote the Second Amendment motion that many legal aid attorneys are now using.

    It can require multiple trips to One Police Plaza, a wait of more than four months, and fees that can reach more than $1,000 over a decade. Some criminal defense lawyers also say that the requirement that applicants possess "good moral character" is too arbitrary.

    Mr. Vargas moved last month from the address on Lincoln Avenue where he was arrested, neighbors said. He could not be reached for comment. An immigrant from the Dominican Republic who is in his early 40s, Mr. Vargas "was a very nice man whenever I saw him," an upstairs neighbor, Beatrez Leger, said, adding that she recalled the arrest in 2006.

    "I know he was very upset about it," she said.

    Another neighbor, who declined to give his name, said that Mr. Vargas usually sells hot dogs at the corner of Liberty and Sheridan Avenues, although he was not there yesterday. A Daniel Vargas was, until 2004, registered as a street vendor with the Department of Health.

    Ms. Guthrie declined to comment on the case, explaining that "any press isn't helpful" for Mr. Vargas.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    "except for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.'

    THAT is a TOTALLY FALSE statement... and assumption. This is the sort of 'lore' disinformation readily swallowed and digestedby the Sheep. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT limited to 'a handgun at home for self-defense'.

    In fact. the 2A doesn't evenaddress 'handguns'. Arms, people! Arms! Again... here is Justice Scalia's (Constitutional) opinion.:

    “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

    Nuthin' bout 'handguns'... or the home. ARMS! If these 'Judges' can't figure this out... they should be in another line of work. 'All instruments that constitute bearable arms." Bearable... means: 'to carry'. Not on a shelf, disassembled and locked away someplace. No 'registration' or any of that is even implied. States and municipalities cannot trump the Constitution. Doing so is Tyranny! They know it's illegal and do it anyway. New York has done this as long as I can remember. I believe it was the Sullivan Act. The RIGHT to self defense is one of those 'inalienable rights' free people are born with. "...the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right" It's not something 'granted' by the government. (That's license) "... and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.” What part of 'Shall not be infringed" don't these tyrants understand?

    What's even more disgusting is that it takes a Texan to post it... an aArizona 'cowboy' to even comment on this post; not a metrocentric New Yorker.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    If there is any way to find out where he sells his dogs, my wife will be in NYC this week and would love to meet him!

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    "except for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.'

    THAT is a TOTALLY FALSE statement... and assumption. This is the sort of 'lore' disinformation readily swallowed and digestedby the Sheep. The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT limited to 'a handgun at home for self-defense'.
    No it's not limited to home defense. SCOTUS ruled that since that is all Heller was asking for that was all they were going to rule on, that and the fact that handguns can't be banned. Read the decision.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Read my post above... 'OR'...

    SCJ Scalia: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”



  6. #6
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Read my post above... 'OR'...

    SCJ Scalia: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

    After all the BS that Scalia mentions in the decision it boils down to the last 2 paragraphs of the decision. And the first 2 words of the last 2 paragraphs tells us this. When this first came out I readthe entire decision3-4 times and was hoping against hope each time that it would say that it was to affirm a whole lot more. Each time I was disappointed. Sad, but this is what it says, and this is what we have to work with until the next time. It also only applies to D.C., sadly. On the up side, it did affirm that it protects (not grants) an individual right to keep and bear arms.





    In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun


    possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,


    as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm


    in the home operable for the purpose of immediate


    self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified


    from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District


    must permit him to register his handgun and must


    issue him a license to carry it in the home.


    * * *


    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.


    We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
    It is so ordered
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  7. #7
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Sorry to disagree... but the Constitution applies to the entire United States, not just Heller or DC. The Courts opinion addresses the litigants and DC's BSin particular, but Scalia's opinion applies to the 2A overall.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    I agree that the 2A does apply to the entire country. Sadly, that is not what D.C. v Heller was about. The court took a very narrow view as to what they were ruling on and that is all they ruled on. If you think that theD.C. v Heller decision gives you the right to open carry anywhere, go ahead, be my guest,you can be the test case. Just tell them I said it was OK and I'm sure they will understand.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  9. #9
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    I agree that the 2A does apply to the entire country. Sadly, that is not what D.C. v Heller was about. The court took a very narrow view as to what they were ruling on and that is all they ruled on. If you think that theD.C. v Heller decision gives you the right to open carry anywhere, go ahead, be my guest,you can be the test case. Just tell them I said it was OK and I'm sure they will understand.
    I actually do OC most anywhere... This being a Republic however... certain States and Municipalities still violate the Constitution in the same manner as those stuck on stupid tyrants' do in DC.The wavescaused byHeller are moving... outward. OH... CT now... even localities in IL. Like Roe vs Wade... It's happening.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Come on over to Texas and see what happens. This is part of the United States. So it should apply here, right?

    And, no, not like Rowe v Wade because in Rowe v Wade, somehow the activist justices found (fabricated)a right where none exists. The RKBA is God given and not government given.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    OC used to be normal in Texas. Used to be 'normal' everywhere. The Daltons's found that out in Coffyville, Kansas. Now rape, robbery, murder and aggravated assault are normal. Victimhood is normal. Passivity is normal. Who do we thank for that? The voters... or perhaps the pre-occupied and complacent who can't be bothered to do that. Sheeple? It's up to Texicans to fix what's wrong in Texas... Maybe that's underway. Too bad y'all lost it... but somebody let it happen.

    According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.



    14A... SCOTUS sez. 'Case applied to Texas statute. Applied to the Constitutional 14A overall.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    OC used to be normal in Texas. Used to be 'normal' everywhere. The Daltons's found that out in Coffyville, Kansas. Now rape, robbery, murder and aggravated assault are normal. Victimhood is normal. Passivity is normal. Who do we thank for that? The voters... or perhaps the pre-occupied and complacent who can't be bothered to do that. Sheeple? It's up to Texicans to fix what's wrong in Texas... Maybe that's underway. Too bad y'all lost it... but somebody let it happen.

    According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.



    14A... SCOTUS sez. 'Case applied to Texas statute. Applied to the Constitutional 14A overall.
    Actually, we lost it during reconstruction after the Civil War. For atime it was only enforced against former slaves to keep them from carrying. After a while it was enforced on everyone.

    I know what they said and what they used to justify it. The right to privacy comes from the 4A. They some how connected the 14A due process clause, but if that is the case it seems that the 14A would protect the person growing inside the mother, not sentence it to death at the whim of the mother, unless they mean that because it hasn't been born (All persons born or naturalized....) yet, that it is not afforded the rights guaranteed by 14A. Absurd.

    We are way off topic and I choose not to discuss abortion any further, so youcan have the last word if you like.

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I personally don't agree with it... but it's the law. 'Same as these people who don't agree with the 2A. They're entitled to their opinions... but don't deny me my Right.



    Funny... this whole thread's been ignored by New Yorkers 'n carried on by a Texan 'n an Arizonan. No wonder New York is like it is... Apathy.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Yeah, it's sad.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , New York, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    "What's even more disgusting is that it takes a Texan to post it... an aArizona 'cowboy' to even comment on this post; not a metrocentric New Yorker."

    Sonora Rebel...Whoa tiger, what NYer pissed in your cheerios? If you live in AZ, why the badmouthing of NYers? I was born and raised in NY, i cannot help that lberal anti-gunners run my state.

    Now, in response to thatlengthy, albeit interseting, article. Mr Vargas of the Bronx was arrested because he had an "unregistered handgun" in his residence. It further states that Mr. Vargasconsented to the search of his home. My question is why? I mean, if you have nothing to hide and you feel its ok for the police to enter your home, thanthats your call.However, the police were acting on a "tip" that included the whereabouts of the firearm. If i were Mr. Vargas, i would have never allowed the police to enter and search my residence in the first place. They were not there because there was a crime taking place and they did not have a search warrant. I am not anti-law enforcement by any means, but this story seemed a bit out of whack.

    Im just glad to see that people are fighting for their right to protect themselves and own a firearm. Gun lawsdo have their place,after all, you dontwant every skell on the streetcarrying. But i see no reason why a law-abiding citizen cannot excercise that right?


  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    unarmed in westchester wrote:
    "What's even more disgusting is that it takes a Texan to post it... an aArizona 'cowboy' to even comment on this post; not a metrocentric New Yorker."

    Sonora Rebel...Whoa tiger, what NYer pissed in your cheerios? If you live in AZ, why the badmouthing of NYers? I was born and raised in NY, i cannot help that lberal anti-gunners run my state.

    Now, in response to thatlengthy, albeit interseting, article. Mr Vargas of the Bronx was arrested because he had an "unregistered handgun" in his residence. It further states that Mr. Vargasconsented to the search of his home. My question is why? I mean, if you have nothing to hide and you feel its ok for the police to enter your home, thanthats your call.However, the police were acting on a "tip" that included the whereabouts of the firearm. If i were Mr. Vargas, i would have never allowed the police to enter and search my residence in the first place. They were not there because there was a crime taking place and they did not have a search warrant. I am not anti-law enforcement by any means, but this story seemed a bit out of whack.

    Im just glad to see that people are fighting for their right to protect themselves and own a firearm. Gun lawsdo have their place,after all, you dontwant every skell on the streetcarrying. But i see no reason why a law-abiding citizen cannot excercise that right?
    Why badmouth New Yorkers? You're the first New Yorker to respond to this whole incident. Total Apathy! Y'all elect these pinko gomers over and over again who will never address these Rights much less support them. Shumer... what a piece of work he is. Bloomberg... da king of Manhatten. 'Could prob'ly buy Manhatten... New Yorker's don't care about their rights... that's why they get the government they deserve.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    "except for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.'

    THAT is a TOTALLY FALSE statement... and assumption. This is the sort of 'lore' disinformation readily swallowed and digested*by the Sheep.* The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT limited to 'a handgun at home for self-defense'.

    In fact. the 2A doesn't even*address 'handguns'.* Arms, people!* Arms! Again... here is Justice Scalia's (Constitutional) opinion.:

    “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

    Nuthin' bout 'handguns'... or the home.* ARMS! If these 'Judges' can't figure this out... they should be in another line of work. 'All instruments that constitute bearable arms."* Bearable... means: 'to carry'. Not on a shelf, disassembled and locked away someplace. No 'registration' or any of that is even implied. States and municipalities cannot trump the Constitution. Doing so is Tyranny! They know it's illegal and do it anyway. New York has done this as long as I can remember.* I believe it was the Sullivan Act. The RIGHT to self defense is one of those 'inalienable rights' free people are born with. "...the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right" It's not something 'granted' by the government. (That's license) *"... and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”* What part of 'Shall not be infringed" don't these tyrants understand?

    What's even more disgusting is that it takes a Texan to post it... an a*Arizona 'cowboy' to even comment on this post; not a metrocentric New Yorker.

    Too bad that Scalia's opinion is also wrong, and aside from use it the courtroom has basically no value due to a major error, which is both fallacious and unconstitutional.

    Scalia says:

    [/size]The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

    Oh, except for machine guns, destructive devices, etc etc etc. Those aren't "arms", they're dangerous devices!
    What a ****** bag.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    It is legal for citizens to possess full auto weapons and destructive devices with the proper FFL ticket. Bearable arms... not crew served weapons. Machine guns are not destructive devices.

    Whatta ****** bag? This is the first SC opinion on the 2A in the past 82 years or so.

    It also put to rest the entire 'militia' argument. I should think you'd be a bit more appreciative 'n not throw the baby out with the bath water.Bearable arms also include edged weapons among other things.

    "aside from use it the courtroom has basically no value" Uh... the COURT is the arbitrator of the Law. Of course it has value.Just after the Heller case... the walls of anti-2A began to fall all over the country. Local ordnances were recinded. Carry movements got attention and the 2A was again addressed and recognized by legislators.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    It is legal for citizens to possess full auto weapons and destructive devices with the proper FFL ticket.* Bearable arms... not crew served weapons.* Machine guns are not destructive devices.*
    What is your point? Machine guns are not destructive devices, but they are both classes of objects that I am basically prohibited from owning thanks to your beloved Supreme Court.

    Last I checked, "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean that the government gets to require the "proper FFL ticket" for me to possess arms, nor do they get to prohibit me from owning newly manufactured arms, just so that it becomes prohibitively expensive to own them at all.

    Let me make it real clear. I can afford an AR-15. I cannot afford a legal full-auto sear for the same gun. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I cannot legally own an (appropriately priced) fully automatic AR-15 pattern gun. You know exactly where the federal government can shove their "proper FFL ticket."

    As for your "crewed weapons" strawman, I have a hankering to own a USAS-12 and one of those nifty AA12's they've just come out with. Since those are most definitely "bearable arms" and not "crewed weapons," I guess the Federal government and their SCOTUS enforcers won't have a problem with me buying them this weekend, eh? :quirky


    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    "aside from use it the courtroom has basically no value"* Uh... the COURT is the arbitrator of the Law.* Of course it has value.*Just after the Heller case... the walls of anti-2A began to fall all over the country.* Local ordnances were recinded.* Carry movements got attention and the 2A was again addressed and recognized by legislators. *
    This isn't a court room. This is a forum. In this forum, you tried to make a point using a fallacious argument (Scalia's opinion). That makes your own argument fallacious. Hence, yes, the opinion is useless outside of a courtroom.

    The SCOTUS may imagine the validity of a fallacious argument due to "precedent," but that's how we got 80 years of "militia clause" BS in the first place. I require conformity to the rules of logic, and Scalia's opinion doesn't come close.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I require conformity to the rules of logic, and Scalia's opinion doesn't come close.
    So do I. If you will take the time to read the entire decision, you will see that SCOTUS gave a very narrow interpretation and addressed only the points that Heller was asking for. Chief Justice Roberts likes very narrowopinions and that is what he requires of all cases. That is whyScalia did not address the entire 2A, not because he is a moron or something. Other cases are coming that will address the issue of carry and state incorporation.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  21. #21
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    I sense a bit of anarchist in your response. We still have areas where simply wearing a pistol is cause for major heartburn 'n you're goin' on for the whole carte blanche enchalada... for all. I dunno... OC has only been OK in VA since'05 ifI remember right. I've been doin' it off 'n on for the past 42 years... so I'm rather comfortable with the Arizona situation. Some folks glassesare never full... It's not MY SCOTUS... and there's been worse. Heller only passed by 3-2... but it passed. I kind'a doubt you've traveled much... or have had military service and experience with military weapons... much less combat. Just 'cause Scalia's opinion (or mine) doesn't match your own... don't mean it's 'fallacious'.Some folks are never satisfied... but that's the breaks. Bye!

  22. #22
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    I sense a bit of anarchist in your response. We still have areas where simply wearing a pistol is cause for major heartburn 'n you're goin' on for the whole carte blanche enchalada... for all. I dunno... OC has only been OK in VA since'05 ifI remember right. I've been doin' it off 'n on for the past 42 years... so I'm rather comfortable with the Arizona situation. Some folks glassesare never full... It's not MY SCOTUS... and there's been worse. Heller only passed by 3-2... but it passed. I kind'a doubt you've traveled much... or have had military service and experience with military weapons... much less combat. Just 'cause Scalia's opinion (or mine) doesn't match your own... don't mean it's 'fallacious'.Some folks are never satisfied... but that's the breaks. Bye!
    I'm not sure if you were talking to me or marshaul. I assume marshaul. I can't see any thing in my post that would make anyone think that I am an anarchist. I'm certainly not. Although I do believe that machine guns should be treated as "bearable arms" which they certainly are.

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  23. #23
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    'Wasn't directed at you. Yeah... MG's (some) are bearable arms. Restricted since 1936 due to criminaluse of (mainly) Thompson SMG's. It's this criminality that has since prevented John Q. from owning them w/o jumping thru hoops.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    'Wasn't directed at you. Yeah... MG's (some) are bearable arms. Restricted since 1936 due to criminaluse of (mainly) Thompson SMG's. It's this criminality that has since prevented John Q. from owning them w/o jumping thru hoops.
    Yes, and according to this SCOTUS, we may see a lifting ofsaid banif this SCOTUS can get a case. Oh, wouldn't that be nice.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  25. #25
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    'All instruments that constitute bearable arms..." Yeah... That's a pretty broad brush. Too bad some would degenegrate it... ignore it completely or be otherwise unappreciative. 'S'pose that comes with comprehension of what it says. 'Soon as I read it the first time...I had to read it again to make sure I wasn't seein' things.

    That Constitutional opinion never made it to the MSM... or went in the tank. Most of these recent changes to 'carry' never make it to the MSM either... 'cept when it's in one of the 'Network' HQ areas. Even then (like VA's OC ruling) wasn't reported by WTOP et al. Very few knew of it... including VA cops.

    I copied the whole thing and sent it to Mayor Fenty (D-DC) 'bout a half hour after the Heller decision... when he said semi-auto's were still banned... and otherwise made excuses for his SOSDD BS! I guess the DC gummint only recognizes some' civil rights? Y'know... the one's they agree with?

    There's a reason why AZ has no 'blade length' restrictions on knives carried openly. Arms! I'm about to go to Tombstone again for Helldorado this comin' Oct 17-19. Yow... all sorts of loaded hardware carried around down there for those events. (There's several of 'em each year.)I just carry an SAA .45LC... and an Arkansas toothpick with a 13" blade. 'Looks like a short sword. 'Stuff like that was carried inthe 1880's. It'd give some of these Sheriff's in PA... LA 'n such an apoplectic fit. 'Couple hundred folks heeled to the teeth 'n loaded.... women 'n kids everywhere. Nobody get's excited.... or 'skeered'. We leave the guns at the smoke shop on Allen St. or check 'em atSix Gun Citywhen drinkin'. In VA ya don't have to do that... but it's not a big inconvienience. The tourists from back east (and Europe) freak out when they learn all these guns are REAL... but then they get used to it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •