At Supreme Court, Chicago's lawyer seems concerned about open carry rights

imported post

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

SNIP


MR. FELDMAN: Well, it's just that the end -- I have two points I would like to make about that. One is the analysis the Court used in Heller. In Heller, what the Court said is: This is not the time to balance things; you cannot ban handguns.
Now, there may be local -- there have been local jurisdictions before and there are now ones where they feel allowing some firearms, but banning handguns, is the best way to achieve public safety and to increase the zone of ordered liberty for their people. And those things would be apparently impermissible under Heller.
But even more than that, Heller construed the Second Amendment's "bear" -- the word "bear," "to keep and bear arms" -- to mean the same thing as "carry" in this Court's case in Muscarello much later. And to carry -- generally to carry.
Many -- there is a long history of regulation of not just concealed carry, as the Court did recognize in Heller, but of ban -- of banning open carry in a variety of jurisdictions. Again, generally, it's someplace that is -- it has a particular problem; it's a city or something like that.

imported post

Of course they are concerned. The core right tobear arms is the open carry of handguns and long guns.

If SCOTUD says as much, then wooooohoooo!!!, the right is really a right.

imported post

is it just me, or does that statement seem a tad incoherent and disconnected?

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

is it just me, or does that statement seem a tad incoherent and disconnected?

Click to expand...

Read the arguments.........Nearly everything Feldmen says is incoherent and disconnected.

imported post

Hopefully, that will help our side carry the day with a big win!

imported post

So we may ahve to wait til June to get that decision too?


Anyway, Feldman seems very unsure of what he is saying.

imported post

Of course it sounds incoherent and disconnected, they have to present and argue facts, not emotions.

Without the emotional aspect of the gun banners argument, they have nothing!

We, on the other hand, have facts from many solid sources to present.

imported post

Talk to any anti-gun "fill in the blank" for more than a few seconds and they all sound that way. No facts, no history, no logic....just emotion and opinions.

imported post

Flashbang wrote:

Talk to any anti-gun "fill in the blank" for more than a few seconds and they all sound that way. No facts, no history, no logic....just emotion and opinions.

Click to expand...

+1. My favorite anti gun comment often heard is..."Think of the children".:?

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

Flashbang wrote:

Talk to any anti-gun "fill in the blank" for more than a few seconds and they all sound that way. No facts, no history, no logic....just emotion and opinions.

Click to expand...

+1. My favorite anti gun comment often heard is..."Think of the children".:?

Click to expand...

Think of the children... that will be killed, kidnapped, or raped because I am disarmed? Don't tell me think of the children when your bovine feces will lead to their pain and suffering. I think of MY children and I love them enough to PROTECT THEM.

imported post

Read the entire thing.

I still think there is a fundamental right to self defense. Incorporated or not.

The method of self defense should be sufficient to enable the bearer of arms to field such arms in defense of home and country.

States should not be allowed to restrict or regulate it and definitely not the Fed.



Just my 2 cents worth...

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

is it just me, or does that statement seem a tad incoherent and disconnected?

Click to expand...

A man cannot cry and talk at the same time.

imported post

In a way I kinda felt bad for Feldman... He came in at the 11th hour and had to TRY to base his argument based on Chicago's POS brief. Playing devils advocate, could anybody have read that turd and tried to defend it without becoming a bumbling mess?

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

is it just me, or does that statement seem a tad incoherent and disconnected?

Click to expand...

Read the arguments.........Nearly everything Feldmen says is incoherent and disconnected.

Click to expand...

It's not an accident. A major part of the attack on rights is confusion. You can't rebut it if you can't figure it out. The "In summation" is where all that droning, stuttering, and incoherent jibberish is treated like a foundation for some empty assertion "In summation, guns are bad, kill everyone who has them." All that blabbering is incomprehensible nothingness, but there's so much of it, it has to be valid and meaningful, right? I'm but a peasant, I better let those way-smart people decide everything for me...

Same reason why they can use terms incorrectly when referring to their hated enemy, the gun. They don't even have to know the difference between a barrel, a stock, and a magazine. It's just a bunch of scary-sounding noise to their target audience; and they know it.

All they need is noise. They don't intend anyone to understand it. It isn't even sane most of the time. They know the people they want on their side are the ones who don't know any better and can't understand it anyway. They just need it to be loud, caustic, scary-sounding, and endless.

Anything other than the truth, benefits the liar. Doesn't matter what it is.

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

is it just me, or does that statement seem a tad incoherent and disconnected?

Click to expand...

Read the arguments.........Nearly everything Feldmen says is incoherent and disconnected.

Click to expand...

Making an argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is like the Superbowl for lawyers. It's also nerve-wracking. The Justices make a point of trying to rattle the lawyers. Most of the real legal wrangling was in the briefs. The oral presentation is simply to flesh out the arguments.

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

Brass Magnet wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

is it just me, or does that statement seem a tad incoherent and disconnected?

Click to expand...

Read the arguments.........Nearly everything Feldmen says is incoherent and disconnected.

Click to expand...

Making an argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is like the Superbowl for lawyers. It's also nerve-wracking. The Justices make a point of trying to rattle the lawyers. Most of the real legal wrangling was in the briefs. The oral presentation is simply to flesh out the arguments.

Click to expand...

Flesh out, flush out...

imported post

CraigC178 wrote:

In a way I kinda felt bad for Feldman... He came in at the 11th hour and had to TRY to base his argument based on Chicago's POS brief. Playing devils advocate, could anybody have read that turd and tried to defend it without becoming a bumbling mess?

Click to expand...

Yeah, someone can! The Obamessiah can polish all turds, just put it on a teleprompter. In fact, since he is the Obamessiah, he can turn turds into gold. AH! Now I know how he plans to pay for it all....

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

GWbiker wrote:

Flashbang wrote:

Talk to any anti-gun "fill in the blank" for more than a few seconds and they all sound that way. No facts, no history, no logic....just emotion and opinions.

Click to expand...

+1. My favorite anti gun comment often heard is..."Think of the children".:?

Click to expand...

Think of the children... that will be killed, kidnapped, or raped because I am disarmed? Don't tell me think of the children when your bovine feces will lead to their pain and suffering. I think of MY children and I love them enough to PROTECT THEM.

Click to expand...

My wife and I were not blessed with children.

Nothing warms my heart more than seeing fellow OC'ers with their children at the dinners.

Despite what anyone says, this, and women OC'ers, are the best advertising we can have. Still smile when I recall the 6 year old girl at Dominion with her pink .22.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

GWbiker wrote:

Flashbang wrote:

Talk to any anti-gun "fill in the blank" for more than a few seconds and they all sound that way. No facts, no history, no logic....just emotion and opinions.

Click to expand...

+1. My favorite anti gun comment often heard is..."Think of the children".:?

Click to expand...

Think of the children... that will be killed, kidnapped, or raped because I am disarmed? Don't tell me think of the children when your bovine feces will lead to their pain and suffering. I think of MY children and I love them enough to PROTECT THEM.

Click to expand...

I wonder why it never crosses the anti-gun parent's mind that actually being able to protect your child from harm might be a good idea? What do they think is going to happen if a kidnapper tries to snatch their kid? Carjacking is another common way that the kid in the car seat ends up gone. What can they do about either of those things?

Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

"Buh bye, Son/Daughter, you just aren't that important. My hateful political agenda needs your mangled, lifeless body! I hereby donate your life to the cause!" - All anti-gun Parents.

I hope God has a special place in Hell for them.

imported post

+1. My favorite anti gun comment often heard is..."Think of the children".:?

Click to expand...

I was a caller on the Bob Rivers Show in Seattle on Thursday and was asked about carrying my weapon into a bar. I told them the bar was off-limits but I could sit in the family area without issue. A lady on the show said "you mean where there are kids in highchairs ??" LMAO...