What Will SCOTUS Do

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Goodnight Vlad,

 

              I also like breaking clay idols! We also refer to them as clay pidgins sometimes!  I often find them at yard sales and take them to the range. Good, cheap

targets are hard to come by these days! It's like finding bricks of .22s for under $20!

 

              Now, back to SCOTUS, I sure hope they grant cert!

[voyager9 3,434]

I'm enjoying my wine, and the conversation, I like breaking clay idols

 

But I'm going to bed, so I'll catch up on this in the morning.

You mean wine and whine..

[Underdog 1,593]

Compromised or in colusion? Or just total irresponsibility and disregard in not taking it.

 

May the farce be with you.

 

I know, I'm excused, too.

 

My money is on them not hearing the case.

[Newtonian 453]

Due to the demographics of the PRNJ, we will most likely never be able to vote them out so we must rely on other channels!

 

 

The demographics are indeed bleak, and getting bleaker. But as I've pointed out several times, here and in other forums, enough democrats are vulnerable. If gun owners and their families voted we could win enough seats to take back the legislature.

[mikelets456 78]

Because there are 4000 laws about "free speech" and every other damn thing on the planet. Nor did I state their were constitutional. I also did not state that NSA, drones or anything else were the issue?

 

Do you yourself a favor and stay on the topic you don't want to look silly, and again, calling me names doesn't change the laws.  You might want to try reading what I wrote before you snap a gasket and accuse me of supporting idiotic laws.

 

I seems it is beyond your comprehension that the US Constitution is not perfect and your only answer is to call me names. I don't feel particularly insulted by people who result to name calling when they can't make a valid point, so try again.

 

A frustrated attack and for that I apologize.

 

Back on subject. It's obvious that obamacare is unconstitutional and it only takes ONE part to make the whole thing unconstitutional, there's obviously more than one.

 

Second, regarding SCOTUS their job is to make sure laws are constitutional....not to write new laws, etc. However judges are now writing new laws. The reason I bring up how we are no longer in a constitutional era, did you know law schools do not require the full study of the constitution? What happens when justices believe our constitution is a "charter of negative liberties"? For one, Ginsberg does not believe it. So how is law ruled?

 

The reason I brought up the NSA, TSA, patriot act, drones is to prove that we are no longer following the Constitution. If we were, the simplicity of the first 4 amendments would not be in question or altered. When we gave things like hate speech laws, 4000 plus gun laws, illegal searches, etc please explain how we are in a constitutional era?

[bhunted 887]

Burp!

Grab one for me John! After today, my nerves are shot!  I am on #7 now!!!

 

We all need to mellow out a bit.

[Vlad G 345]

A frustrated attack and for that I apologize.

 

Understood, as I said, I'm not easily offended.

 

Back on subject. It's obvious that obamacare is unconstitutional and it only takes ONE part to make the whole thing unconstitutional, there's obviously more than one.

 

Nope, it is not obvious that the law is unconstitutional. I've asked exactly what chapter and verse is unconstitutional, and no one has provided one yet. Its implementation I'd say it is more so, but that was not something challenged in court, and the implementation is not the law. The reason I harp on this is because when we have arguments with the anti's we need to base them in reality not on what we wish reality to be.

 

Second, regarding SCOTUS their job is to make sure laws are constitutional....not to write new laws, etc. However judges are now writing new laws. The reason I bring up how we are no longer in a constitutional era, did you know law schools do not require the full study of the constitution? What happens when justices believe our constitution is a "charter of negative liberties"? For one, Ginsberg does not believe it. So how is law ruled?

 

This is not new. Judges have always been activists. Take a look at Dread Scott, Plessy, McCulloch, etc. Judges are human and make mistakes. If you roll the clock back to the mid 1800's you will find a PILE of bad decisions that have lead to where we are today, allowing regulation of commerce, central banks, etc. The root of the problem is then not today. Over the years we've come to treat the Supreme court as some mythical oracle that is never wrong and we are offended when we think they are. They are nothing but a branch of government, with all that such a statement entails. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right.

 

The reason I brought up the NSA, TSA, patriot act, drones is to prove that we are no longer following the Constitution. If we were, the simplicity of the first 4 amendments would not be in question or altered. When we gave things like hate speech laws, 4000 plus gun laws, illegal searches, etc please explain how we are in a constitutional era?

 

Look, we have never really followed the Constitution.  I hate to break it to you but we've been ignoring it for 250 years or so. We changed how we elect senators, we've ignored slavery, we've created central banks, we instituted taxes, we've allowed confiscation of property, RICO laws, interment of Japanese, The New Deal, confiscation of gold coinage, etc, etc, etc. The Constitution is a piece of paper not a mystical tablet. It wasn't perfect to begin with and it has certainly been abused crumpled and ignored ever since. I say again, the people who wrote it expected regular revolutions, they were after all revolutionaries.

 

Should we ignore it like we do? Hell no, but what I want the world to be and what the world is are two different things. Pretending it is not what it is plain as day that it is, only makes us and our side look like lunatics when we argue with other people. The reason I argue with you people, is because I'm trying to show you how fragile the arguments of "our side" are when we face people on facebook or whatever. If you want to win the fight for popular opinion you need to make arguments based on the reality they observe, not a mythical ideal system of laws that has never existed. If you result to name calling like some of you have done here, you've lost the argument and turned people against us, instead of towards us.

 

If you want to pigeon hole me, I'm a libertarian with borderline anarchistic tendencies. I don't any more government then I need to not die. But I'm a realist as well and I know that it will never happen because most people prefer to be led then to lead their own lives. Face that reality, face the cold hard truth that neither party is your friend, they are just telling you a different set of lies you would like to believe (the TSA, NSA, and Patriot Act as we know them today were republican creations).

 

We win this fight by convincing people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum that they are better off being armed then disarmed, and if you need to change the argument for each side so it matches their world view so be it. Find a way to convince them it is in their best interest, not because it is your right. Make it about them, not you.

 

Back to the SCOTUS thing though, and their self interest, for them this is not about guns. It is about a lower court usurping their power. It is about opening the door to state and lower court challenges to Roe vs Wade, etc. That is why I'm optimistic, the 3ed's decision is slaughtering other sacred cows, indirectly.

[DeerSlayer 241]

Just for the record, anyone refers to me as Count Dracula and its on!

[Sota 1,191]

Ok, Count Chocula.

[DeerSlayer 241]

Ok, Count Chocula.

I prefer Frankenberry!

[Reddog87 0]

I prefer Frankenberry!

 

What about booberry ?

[Newtonian 453]

Look, we have never really followed the Constitution.  I hate to break it to you but we've been ignoring it for 250 years or so. We changed how we elect senators, we've ignored slavery, we've created central banks, we instituted taxes, we've allowed confiscation of property, RICO laws, interment of Japanese, The New Deal, confiscation of gold coinage, etc, etc, etc. The Constitution is a piece of paper not a mystical tablet. It wasn't perfect to begin with and it has certainly been abused crumpled and ignored ever since. I say again, the people who wrote it expected regular revolutions, they were after all revolutionaries.

 

If you want to win the fight for popular opinion you need to make arguments based on the reality they observe, not a mythical ideal system of laws that has never existed. If you result to name calling like some of you have done here, you've lost the argument and turned people against us, instead of towards us.

 

 

I agree that the constitution, and our rights, have been under constant assault due to actions of government at all levels. Fighting dictatorship creep is a constant battle, consuming precious resources with no guarantee of victory. Yet to say we have "ignored" the constitution is easily contradicted by fact. Why do you think the Supreme Court and lower courts hear all these cases every year? Somebody, at some level, cares.

 

Your examples: Direct election of senators (17th Amendment), taxation (Article 1, section 8; 16th Amendment). Slavery was legal because Africans were property. Correct about RICO, gold confiscation, Japanese internment. 

 

I also agree that we cannot rely on constitutional (or theologic) "right to bear arms" arguments with individuals who believe neither in God nor the rule of law. I've argued many times for arguing on the basis of experience in other states. 

 

However, to call the Constitution a "piece of paper" is to hold a view of law that is incompatible with civilization. Without getting too dramatic, Soviet authorities, including the judiciary, ignored their constitution without even the modicum of challenges we enjoy here, to disastrous effect. 

 

What's off the table for you in terms off absolute rights? Criticizing, or simply telling the truth, about certain groups already disqualifies us from a range of occupations. Even leftists are not immune, much less centrists or conservatives. Ask Larry Summers, Alec Baldwin, and (in the afterlife) Christopher Hitchens. It will not be long before this cultural and mostly private practice becomes codified, as the thought police recruits graduate from the academy and flock to the legislatures and judiciary. 

 

Without first amendment guarantees, as practiced say 40 years ago, speech becomes a cheapened entitlement that government eventually disburses like food stamps, only differing by virtue of the qualification process. 

 

Despite centuries of mayors, colonels, governors, and legislators usurping our rights at the point of a gun, at least we have plain language laws to point to. Without those absolute rights we have nothing with which to challenge them except for an antique, a moving target, a rapidly disintegrating "mystical tablet."

[Vlad G 345]

However, to call the Constitution a "piece of paper" is to hold a view of law that is incompatible with civilization. Without getting too dramatic, Soviet authorities, including the judiciary, ignored their constitution without even the modicum of challenges we enjoy here, to disastrous effect. 

 

That is wishful thinking. It is nothing but a piece of paper (or parchment I suppose). It only matters if people chose to believe it matters, and the majority have long ago chosen that it doesn't matter. Historically I think the empirical evidence strongly suggests that it is an obstacle to be worked around. With ever iteration more and more bypasses, exceptions, workarounds, and interpretations are making the original intent irrelevant.  You will have a very hard time pointing out a single aspect of the original document that works as it was initially envisioned. Maybe the whole quartering of armies thing. 

 

 

That view has nothing to do with civilization. Civilization has existed long before the signing of the Constitution and it will exist after. The right to bear arms did not start there, and it will not end there. It is called realism. What I want the truth and legal frame work to be, are not what reality is showing the world to be.  The world has not started with the US. 

 

What's off the table for you in terms off absolute rights? Criticizing, or simply telling the truth, about certain groups already disqualifies us from a range of occupations. Even leftists are not immune, much less centrists or conservatives. Ask Larry Summers, Alec Baldwin, and (in the afterlife) Christopher Hitchens. It will not be long before this cultural and mostly private practice becomes codified, as the thought police recruits graduate from the academy and flock to the legislatures and judiciary. 

 

I don't even know what that means. Are you implying that I don't think we have rights? Where did you get that notion from? The Constitution doesn't grant right, it recognize them.  But again, it is a piece of paper. If people chose to ignore it its recognition of rights is academic. In the simplest term, ask a shark eating your leg about your pursuit of happiness. 

 

Without first amendment guarantees, as practiced say 40 years ago, speech becomes a cheapened entitlement that government eventually disburses like food stamps, only differing by virtue of the qualification process. 

 

Despite centuries of mayors, colonels, governors, and legislators usurping our rights at the point of a gun, at least we have plain language laws to point to. Without those absolute rights we have nothing with which to challenge them except for an antique, a moving target, a rapidly disintegrating "mystical tablet."

 

It is an illusion. You only have the rights you can concince people you have. Look at free speech zones. How free is your right to speech? Look at the guy who got swatted over his tweets making fun of mayor? You might win the court case, if you live, but the people raiding your house have no respect for your rights so they don't exist.

 

You may have plain word rights, except for we have a huge court system to decide what those plain words mean, or in other words how to work around them.

 

It is a trap. It has been a trap for a very long time, and it is trap we have made for ourselves. We have convinced ourselves we have right because a piece of paper says so, not because we a fierce in defending them.   I'm pretty sure the people who signed that piece of paper would be ashamed we haven't revolted yet, and would laugh at the idea that we think we still have rights. 

 

I'm not telling you that this a good thing. I'm telling you stop living the lie and the dichotomy that if only "my people" would be in office life would be better. If you didn't read that paper I linked earlier about the influence of the voting public, you really should.  The votes of the average person are statistically meaningless, in fact the voting of the entire country is statically meaningless, because people are manipulated on vote on hot button issues by the people actually running the country. Go read that paper. 

 

That makes your paper recognized rights, a rather laughable affair. 

[OchoBlue 3]

http://nj1015.com/supreme-court-to-hear-case-of-nj-man-suing-state-police-over-right-to-carry-permit-poll/

 

 

Should He Get a ‘Right to Carry’ Permit? [POLL]

 

 

Let's vote in this Drake poll at NJ 101.5!

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Let's vote in this Drake poll at NJ 101.5!

Is your intent to vote yes or use the 3rd option to comment?

[Newtonian 453]

 

Civilization has existed long before the signing of the Constitution and it will exist after. The right to bear arms did not start there, and it will not end there. It is called realism. What I want the truth and legal frame work to be, are not what reality is showing the world to be.  The world has not started with the US. 

 

It is an illusion. You only have the rights you can concince people you have.

 

 

Vlad, you seem like an intelligent guy. I must hope that you're either a terminal cynic, or are so much smarter than I that you understand these issues more deeply than I'm capable of. 

 

Because the alternatives are not very appealing.

 

If by "civilization" you mean places and times that produced Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Shakespeare then bravo. Or are you referring to places and times when individuals were forced to testify against themselves, endured trial by fire (without legal representation or even a codified right to a defense), were executed for petty crimes, and were jailed or killed for expressing themselves? Because those things occurred during "civilized" times in "civilized" places. If you go back further, so did outright religious persecution, crucifixion, and fully sanctioned mass murder (see Constantinople). 

 

Having only the rights that you can convince others you have -- another masterpiece of cynicism -- reduces every attempt at codifying, enjoying, and fighting for rights to barbarism. Because what do people do when others remain unconvinced? They attack, beat, kill, and bomb them. That is how many real and perceived violations of "rights" are resolved today.

 

(And please, no lectures on the U.S. bombing Iraq. Nowhere near the same thing.)

[Michael2013 56]

http://nj1015.com/supreme-court-to-hear-case-of-nj-man-suing-state-police-over-right-to-carry-permit-poll/

 

Should He Get a ‘Right to Carry’ Permit? [POLL]

 

Let's vote in this Drake poll at NJ 101.5!

There is no right answer in the list :-(

[Vlad G 345]

Well lets think abstractly about rights for a second. If you were the only person in the world or living on your own island, the notion is nonsensical. You don't need to define what your rights are, they are whatever you want them to be. Rights is a social concept, they only come into play in a social interaction.  Thus the only rights you have are those that the social group accepts you have. For example I could walk around say I have the right to juggle lit dynamite sticks in kindergartens, and if I lived in my own island it would be both true and irrelevant, but if I state that right in suburbia, lots of people will probably say  .. "huh, I don't think you do". 

 

And yes rights evolve both because what society will accept changes, and because what those rights actually entail changes. Look at it this way, I'm pretty sure the 2A is dead in the long run because of a simple couple of words in Heller, "common use". Those words have effectively banned all future arms development from the civilian market if a government so wishes.  That doesn't make Heller a loss, it was better then an outright reversal of the right a we understand it today, but it sets up a change in the future.  Think of voting rights, women did not have the right to vote but we got over that and changed the rules. Pretending rights don't change or evolve is a trap. 

 

Instead of focusing on "I want an AR and 30rd mags and a carry permit" we really should focus on the more elemental right "I want to defend my life by the most effective method that does not create unreasonable danger to people not involved in the confrontation". If that means phasers, so be it, but it doesn't mean pulse grenades, if that helps to make my point. It may need better wording, but you get the gist. 

 

I'll point out to you that Europe doesn't use the US Constitution, and they hardly ever throw people to the alligators or set people on fire. Their set of socially agreed rights does not include arms,  but that doesn't make them uncivilized. 

 

In view of those statements, I don't think that the most common pro-gun social media stance ("Shall not be infringed!! I have my rights!") is actually all that wise.   The answer can very well be, "Sorry, we the society, disagree, and your rights are what we agree they are".  I go back to saying the correct course of actions is not convincing people to respect your rights, but to lead them to were the desire those right for themselves. People at their core are self interested, no one is going to give up their perceived right of "feeling warm of fuzzy" for your right to own arms, unless they believe the right to own arms is also important to them and helps them achieve the correct degree of Snuggles additives to their life. 

 

So this brings me back to arguing with people and how to do it productively. 

 

Stop talking about ACA or Kelo, or whatever when you talk about guns. It is irrelevant. We have enough division in this country, on a million different issues. Whenever you combine 3 issues into one discussion you are just making it more likely that the person you are addressing will decide to really disagree with you on one of them and automatically assume you are wrong on all of them. For example if you are talking with a ACA supporter that is not necessarily antigun, but half way through the conversation you start raging about the ACA being unconstitutional, you just shot their sacred cow in the ass. They are going to be pissed and because they think you are wrong about that, they will assume you are wrong about guns. 

 

Is that worth it? Does it really matter to you that much weather you are right about the ACA, when trying to convince someone about something completely unrelated? You guys need to learn to separate issues and decide which ones matter most to you at any given time and stay focused on the conversation at hand. 

 

Am I a cynic? Maybe. I think I'm a realist. I'll try to explain that with a graphic:

 

 

 

 

Does that explain it?

[n4p226r 105]

To be fair. Common use isn't necessarily a negative. And when combined with prior Supreme Court decisions it's probably a positive. I'd have to lookup the wording on the guy that had the sawed off shotgun. Wasn't he guilty because it was essentially common use for the military. That would allow any commonly used military gear to be covered. Currently the m16. If the military changes to plasma rays in 50 years it should cover that too

[Fred2 367]

" I'll point out to you that Europe doesn't use the US Constitution, and they hardly ever throw people to the alligators or set people on fire. "

 

As long as we exclude most time frames, and areas of  Europe, I guess you are right

[Vlad G 345]

" I'll point out to you that Europe doesn't use the US Constitution, and they hardly ever throw people to the alligators or set people on fire. "

 

As long as we exclude most time frames, and areas of Europe, I guess you are right

You can say the same about the US

[Newtonian 453]

Is that worth it? Does it really matter to you that much weather you are right about the ACA, when trying to convince someone about something completely unrelated? You guys need to learn to separate issues and decide which ones matter most to you at any given time and stay focused on the conversation at hand. 

 

Does that explain it?

Yes. Well-reasoned post. However, I only brought up Kelo and ACA to illustrate that we can't count on anything from the semi-majority. I did not mention those cases as evidence that the Supremes are vile creatures or that we deserve our "god-given second-amendment rights." If you've followed my many posts, you know that we are in nearly 100% agreement that the only sensible argument for expanding gun rights in this state is experience elsewhere. After all, except for a few backwaters what we all accept as "the right to bear arms" has only existed in this country -- depending on where you calculate the center of mass in states adopting  "shall-issue" laws -- for about ten-fifteen years. The 27 year olds I've purchased stuff from in other states don't understand that 30 years ago, the very concept of concealed carry was ludicrous despite the fact that the 2nd Amendment has been there since 1791 (yes, I looked it up).

 

So let's thank the moderators for not moving this thread, although sometimes I wished they would have. Monday, bloody Monday, will tell. 

[NYMetsFan86 9]

Yes. Well-reasoned post. However, I only brought up Kelo and ACA to illustrate that we can't count on anything from the semi-majority. I did not mention those cases as evidence that the Supremes are vile creatures or that we deserve our "god-given second-amendment rights." If you've followed my many posts, you know that we are in nearly 100% agreement that the only sensible argument for expanding gun rights in this state is experience elsewhere. After all, except for a few backwaters what we all accept as "the right to bear arms" has only existed in this country -- depending on where you calculate the center of mass in states adopting  "shall-issue" laws -- for about ten-fifteen years. The 27 year olds I've purchased stuff from in other states don't understand that 30 years ago, the very concept of concealed carry was ludicrous despite the fact that the 2nd Amendment has been there since 1791 (yes, I looked it up).

 

 

 

That is very interesting. I had assumed the position on ccw has been relatively constant for a loooooooong time. 

[WP22 1,558]

That is very interesting. I had assumed the position on ccw has been relatively constant for a loooooooong time. 

[Silence Dogood 468]

The latest on Drake - may hear more on Friday 4/25:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/supreme-court-declines-hear-challenge-nj-gun-law/

[voyager9 3,434]

The latest on Drake - may hear more on Friday 4/25:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/supreme-court-declines-hear-challenge-nj-gun-law/

The court may talk about it on Friday but my understanding is that like last week we wouldn't hear the results until Monday.

[OchoBlue 3]

Relist Watch: What Does the Court’s Relist Streak Mean?

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/relist-watch-what-does-the-courts-relist-streak-mean/#more-208916

 

Another tiny bit of encouragement that they'll hear the Drake case...

[Newtonian 453]

(map deleted)

What I hate about that .gif is you can't stop it. Or can you?

[Newtonian 453]

What I hate about that .gif is you can't stop it. Or can you?

In chrome, use Gif Scrubber (find it in the chrome store). Opens a separate window. Works OK.

[Malsua 1,422]

After all, except for a few backwaters what we all accept as "the right to bear arms" has only existed in this country -- depending on where you calculate the center of mass in states adopting  "shall-issue" laws -- for about ten-fifteen years.

 

Where I grew up in Ohio, there was no need for Concealed carry because you could open carry and it had been that way since 1803 when Ohio became a state.  Granted, you couldn't do it in Columbus, Cleveland or Cincinnati, but pretty much everywhere else it was tolerated.

 

It was also totally common and legal everywhere to carry a holstered gun on the seat of your car or in a gun rack.